Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83 184
theodp writes "Jack Kevorkian, the pathologist said to have had a role in more than 130 assisted suicides, has died from kidney-related complications on the eve of the 21st anniversary of his first assisted suicide. Kevorkian, who served more than eight years in prison for second-degree murder, had his story told in the HBO movie You Don't Know Jack. His antics and personality brought a certain approachability to a grim subject — the fundamental right of terminally ill patients to choose to die. 'I will debate so-called ethicists,' he once said. 'They are not even ethicists. They are propagandists. I will argue with them if they will allow themselves to be strapped to a wheelchair for 72 hours so they can't move, and they are catheterized and they are placed on the toilet and fed and bathed. Then they can sit in a chair and debate with me.' RIP, Dr. Jack."
euthanasia vs the death penalty (Score:5, Interesting)
The cruel irony about this debate is that people who want to (or need to) die are sentenced to an indeterminate amount of suffering before they actually die and people convicted to death have their lives taken for a crime they should spend the rest of their natural lives contemplating in a steel and concrete cell.
The way the most despised are treated says a lot about a society, but the way a society treats it's least despised says a lot more.
Re:There is no right more personal (Score:2, Interesting)
Government is amoral, especially ours. They do use religion as an excuse, of course, and even since the religious reich was mobilized they've been feeling their oats.
Re:There is no right more personal (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you need recalibration.
Inquiry launched as Dutch euthanasia cases surge by 13% in ONE year [dailymail.co.uk]
Continent Death - Euthanasia in Europe [nationalreview.com]
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, those who are rendered helpless -- trapped in a body that no longer works -- do suffer for no good reason. When you can't move on your own, have to fed and have your poo cleaned by others, and most importantly, have no hope of it ever getting better -- you're effectively in the most cruel jail.
Certainly I do not want to be put in this awful position. However, my concern is that if doctor assisted suicide is legalized, the insurance companies will be significantly less motivated to treat seriously ill patients who choose to live. And eventually, even before they get to this stage.
(We already have "quality of life" decisions being made before treatment options are presented to patients. Those who are perceived to have "too low a quality of life" are only offered palliative treatments.)
Re:There is no right more personal (Score:3, Interesting)
Oregon has legal euthanasia. To the best of my knowledge the main controls are:
So this prevents many of the abuses you brought up. I agree that you must guard against abuse, but I think that people should have the choice to end their lives when they stop being worth living, and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. I would not agree with helping someone who is depressed to commit suicide, for example, but would support it for someone with terminal cancer who is in great pain.
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:4, Interesting)
A TL/DR summary of the above:
1) He suggests that when a patient is going to die, and nothing can be done to prevent it, then it makes sense to perform medical experiments on that patient, assuming that consent can first be obtained, and that the experimentation can be done without causing any additional hardship to that patient.
2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering.
3) He suggested that blood could be transfused from someone recently deceased directly into the body of someone in need of a transfusion. The practical application of this procedure would be on the battlefield.
4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.
All of the above sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The questionable parts are at the end, where he expands on the concept of "planned death" to include some externally imposed deaths, and also suggests a market for human organs. Not much detail is provided for either, so I'll make no comment here.