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."
In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would he have killed himself, when he didn't have a terminal illness and was actually expected to recover?
Even if he was hospitalized with a terminal illness and in pain, who would have helped him kill himself?
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if he was terminally ill, why should he be expected to end his life? Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?
Captcha: altruism
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Informative)
Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?
Both, and much more.....
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.
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Informative)
The unreasonable part is that some moron can block my consent to such experiments. When did we redefine freedom as "what lawmakers decide".
I think there is overlap with the ethics of selling human organs:
Organ sales: Compromising ethics [nature.com]
The Hidden Cost of Organ Sale [columbia.edu]
I assume you see nothing wrong with this, nobody in need of help? Three men charged in 'dungeon' castration [msn.com]
Laws establish limits, its been that way since before recorded history.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously we only find blackmarket organ trade and charlatans running dungeons today when the legal restrictions choke out all opportunity for decent and formal alternatives. Same goes for drugs, you won't find ecologic and locally produced opium sold at competitive prices and lab verified for strength, smokeable i
Re: (Score:2)
Playing devil's advocate for a moment the argument is this: The law is there to protect those who cannot protect themselves from the undue influence of others. For example an elderly person pressured to stop being a burden on their family, or someone with mental illness.
In countries where assisted suicide is allowed a doctor has to certify that the person is of sound mind. That is nothing new, we have been doing it in legal matters like the alteration of a will or transfer of responsibility for a long time
Re: (Score:2)
2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering
This causes me concern-- I think the slippery slope of "how long will consent be mandatory" might apply here.
4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.
Assuming of course that consent is always kept as the PRIMARY consideration-- not the fact that they are condemned, or terminally ill. I have no doubt there are many would would suggest that if someone is to be executed anyways, why not perform such and such an experiment on the unwilling prisoner.
Re: (Score:3)
The picture emerges is of a person who often had an important point to raise, but was more than a little creepy.
His antics as a resident aren't disturbing because they involve a dead body; they're disturbing because they involved a *live patient*. What is more, he seems utterly incapable of questioning the wisdom and ethics of doing something to a patient just to satisfy his curiosity. In fact he seems a little self-righteous about the whole affair, as if they *only* basis to objecting to the procedure is
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason people fought against euthensia was the fear that it might be abused. People would pressure other people into it "for the good of the family" or that elderly would feel pressured to do it themselves so they wouldn't burden their relatives. When the BBC Documentary on the subject came out, this was precisely the vibe I got from them. There's no way that this won't be abused to get rid of people who are considered a "burden".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't rendered helpless by his illness -- until his last visit to the hospital shortly before his death. And if this bout of illness would be staved off, he'd have a few more years of mostly fully able life. Most of us have some illness a good part of their lives -- be that bad blood pressure, diabetes, allergy or whatever else. He did succumb to his kidney problems, but was more able at the age of 83 than most of you will be.
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.
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:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I doubt the motivation of health insurance companies would at all be driven by the ability of patients to kill themselves (which to some extent is an option many already have). At some point insurance companies stop paying for heroic measures anyway, and I doubt that the legal availability would impact that.
Now, the consumer demand for insurance that covers more desperate treatments might very well drop if euthanasia becomes more socially acceptable, and that might impact what insurance companies are willing to cover. That is a bit more indirect than what you are suggesting.
Most people don't realize it, but EVERY insurance company puts a price on life - and that includes national healthcare systems as well. If a $100k procedure would extend your life of an 85 year old quadriplegic by one day no insurance system on this planet would pay the bill. If the same procedure was likely to give a 15 year old a normal healthy lifespan (vs death in a few weeks) chances are most insurance systems would pay it (even private insurance in the US). The basic algorithm looks at how a treatment extends your life and/or improves the quality of your life - the more it does both the more it is allowed to cost. In the end everybody puts a price on life - we just don't like to talk about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The unpalatable truth is that killing old people off would be good for everybody, aside of course from the specific old people killed. There would be less expenditure needlessly prolonging useless life, and fewer people who ferociously hold outmoded opinions to the detriment of all.
Re: (Score:3)
for the state it is beneficial to kill people the moment they turn unproductive, which tends to be 10-20 years before these people become truly infirm. In the case of chronic unemployment, it can even be 50 years or more before one becomes infirm
By what definition of unproductive? Retired people are often able to mentor children and young adults Sadly, our society tends to ignore the great many of these potential mentors. Should they be penalized for simply being ignored? Then add in the increasing occurrence of forced retirement for no reason other than a perception they are too old. (Some of my best coworkers are from 70 to 90+ years and are still very productive.)
Before we consider euthanizing the elderly, we should first stop discarding otherwi
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes. Everywhere else the issues are to make sure the correct controls are in place so that only the truly terminal, that truly desire to die, and are competent to make that decision are euthanasized.
Oregon has a very reasonable law controlling euthanasia in that state, and to the best of my knowledge it has not caused any medical insurance to be denied.
Re: (Score:2)
States will definitely make sure young people believe reasonable measures are taken to verify that desire to die. And the incentive of the state is to ignore the desire part as much as possible.
So a thorny question is : how will this evolve over time ? Since the obvious way to "improve" the money and power of the state is to find ways to kill anyone who isn't working in the private sector.
Re: (Score:3)
Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes.
Yes, we keep hearing reports of how those government run plans turn out.
British healthcare in crisis despite massive investment [csmonitor.com]
Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed [telegraph.co.uk]
Hospitals must make deep cuts to survive [ft.com]
For $41-billion, Canadians deserve a straight answer [theglobeandmail.com]
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care [city-journal.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Canadians are happier about their universal health-care system [denverpost.com] than US citizens - and Canadian GDP proportional health care costs are half that of the US [nytimes.com].
I think you got tricked by British tabloids: they are able to complain about Grandma's Sunday cookies, let alone about a huge health care system that covers and helps tens of millions of people in some of the most dramatic moments in their lives ...
The thing is, in the US there are huge private monopolies that have cornered the market for fun and prof
Re: (Score:2)
But that should be less a reason not to legalize it, and more a reason to stamp on the insurance companies throats if they try to pull that, surely? From a strict resource-usage point of view, suicide by terminally ill patients (or those who will need lifelong full-time care), is a desirable thing since those patients use most of the resources (of course, medical accounting seems to be even wackier than military accounting, so who can ever really know) and so clearly it would be desirable to the insurance c
Re: (Score:2)
As K.V. said (Score:4)
God bless you, Dr. Kevorkian
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you, he was an Atheist, don't disrespect him with your bullshit.
There goes a great man, who fought against the religious bullshit machine in the most difficult place possible to do so. Once more enlightened times reach this earth, he will be remembered as he deserves.
Please Read a Book... (Score:5, Informative)
"God Bless You Doctor Kevorkian" is a reference to Kurt Vonnegut's book of the same title. In that book Vonnegut, an atheist, explains how at a meeting of the American Humanist Society, after Isaac Asimov's death, he started a speech there with "Isaac Asimov is in heaven now, God rest is soul." which got a huge laugh from the assembly of atheists.
So it's not an actual religious statement, but a semi-farcical one, acknowledging that we atheists do seem to be at a loss for words when it comes to comforting and consoling people over the recently departed. I try to focus on what a miracle it was that we get to experience the wonder of existence at all--statistically speaking. But I was at a complete loss for words when my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway. What can an spiritual naturalist say to someone when confronted with that? Religion has it easy, they just say the child is in a better place. I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.
Kevorkian led a long life in service of a greater good. What do you propose we as empiricists, spiritual naturalists, rationalists (call us anything other than the unscientific word "atheist" that defines us in a religious context) say to honor the dead and comfort the living? I'm genuinely curious.
Re: (Score:2)
+10 Informative, I didn't get the reference, I'll look into that.
I don't like the idea of defining myself as an Atheist either, as Poe would have put it: de nier ce qui est, et d'expliquer ce qui n'est pas. (to deny what it is, and explain what it's not). But it servers me better than any other term for a simple reason: It's immediately understood by anyone. "I'm an empiricist" doesn't have the same ring as "Fuck you, I'm an Atheist" when said to a jeovah's witness on a sunday morning. So, out of pragmatis
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"I'm sorry for your loss, as a rationalist I can say, without a doubt, he is no longer suffering."
Re:Please Read a Book... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, if you have something on hand for that situation, your words are empty. Things like "god bless" and "he's in a better place" are just like "gesundheit" for sneezing. Things that are automatically said because you're supposed to. And since you're supposed to and not doing any thinking, they don't mean anything.
I'd have some trouble figuring out what to say in that situation as well. What I would do is trying to figure out how I can help, and that's going to depend on who I'm dealing with. I don't think there's a formula for it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Finnish you say "otan osa" which doesn't literally translate well to English. But it basically means I feel your loss, or I feel for you. Doesn't invoke any gods at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're making the mistake that specific words actually matter. Consolation is consolation.
And empty phrases are just that. Don't put to much stock into packaged "wisdom". If my loved one died, people yapping pointless shit to me would have little value. I know from my childhood. It's more them trying to make themselves feel better in an awkward situation than it is actually about consoling somebody.
Re: (Score:2)
Great question.
Nerds tend to be idealists, and hold the ideal of logic and rationalism as the absolute and the supreme. I used to be the same way. This approach works perfectly in math science and engineering, but often fails miserably in social settings, because it does not consider what I call the "people factor", or the human condition.
In situations like that, it's not about logic -- it's not even about you. It's about emotion -- OTHER people's emotion. As such, even though I'm an atheist (an agnosti
Re: (Score:2)
Religion wins when there is a tragedy?
I fail to see how a fairy tale would make a rational, adult, person feel better. Wouldn't a sincere statement of sympathy without reference to obviously untrue statements, like "they are in a better place" be a much more ethical way to act? The world is a neutral place. Bad things do happen. You do want to comfort people who are dealing with tragedy, but we shouldn't have to resort to fairy tales to deal with life's slings and arrows.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen.
There is no right more personal (Score:3)
There is no right more personal than to choose the hour of one's death. Fate robs us of it on one end and government attempts to rob us of it on the other. Fate is what it is, but government wants to control when you die because otherwise it messes up the spreadsheets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, there's a difference (Slight but crucial) between Assisted Suicide and a DNR Order. Personally, I think both should be taken on a case-by-case basis, Even a crippled, paralysed, motor neuron disease riddled man can still contribute immensly to the sum of human knowledge. Okay, not everyone who's permenantly paralysed is Stephen Hawking but you are still you and if you can communicate you want an Assisted Suicide you can still make a difference. Even if it's only to your family, or to one single per
Re: (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 fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no right more personal (Score:4, Insightful)
...there is a world of difference between deliberately causing death, and allowing death by not treating...
Oh, legally, sure. Practically, however, it's a matter of dumb chance. Someone who wishes to die (and makes that as a clear, deliberated, rational, cool-headed choice) has to wait to 'luck in' to an incidental ailment that can be neglected to the point of lethality. The terminal cancer patient with pneumonia gets to choose whether or not to commit suicide by refusal of IV antibiotic treatment. An otherwise identical patient with terminal cancer but no pneumonia doesn't get that choice.
If you accept that there is the potential for abuse by coercing individuals into legal assisted suicide (were such an option available), you also have to accept that there is the potential for abuse involving coercion of individuals into accepting (potentially) therapeutic interventions that they don't actually want. For physicians, there is much more incentive to enroll terminally-ill patients in advanced clinical trials than there is to coerce them into suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
even if I were to accept that ideally people should have a right to choose when they die, I would oppose its legalisation on the basis that the protection of the vulnerable (i.e. those who wouldn't wish to die early but by failure of the process end up doing so) trumps the desire of those who with a clear mind and without coercion do wish to die early.
But the existing legislation does not "protect the vulnerable" - if they are pressed into suicide, it's going to happen anyway; it will just be that much more messy and painful due to methods involved.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it did happen, that's a shame, but just because that happens to a few people, that doesn't mean that assisted suicide should be banned outright."
Read that statement again. That's shocking. If even one person would be killed unnecessarily by the legalisation of assisted suicide, that would be absolute reason to ban it outright. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
*It'd be slightly less these days - more cars, more deaths. When it comes to death, people have no sense of proportion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are any number of religions that do indeed believe that life is supernatural and magical and that it continues beyond the death of the body. Only some of them believe that euthanasia is a sin, others believe it's a form of ministry helping people on to the next phase of their existence. Don't lump it all in together.
Re: (Score:2)
Government, and religion. This is slashdot, where we blame religion for everything, but this time that is where the blame belongs. There's a lot of superstitious thought around - people who think human life is something magical and supernatural, which must be sustained by any means until the very last moment.
Very true -and rather ironic, considering most major religions adherents (Xtianity and Islam, at any rate) claim to believe in a wonderful afterlife, and often treat physical reality like it's some kind of toilet where everyone should suffer and practice loads of self-denial; then you get rewarded at the end. They want everyone to endure this as long as possible. Then there's the whole Catholic anti-suicide thing that automatically lands you in purgatory. Nice. It's tantamount to sado-masochism.
If we ca
Re: (Score:2)
There is one possible loophole. In theory, a deadly sin can be confessed like any other - but it's obviously impossible in suicide. Almost. If you used some form of slow-acting suicide like a drug overdose, then you could confess the sin before it takes effect. The tricky part is getting genuine repentance. Some use of drugs may be required to provide a temporary mood lift or pain reduction to make sure you genuinely regret the suicide. It'd be tricky, dep
Re: (Score:2)
Government, and religion. This is slashdot, where we blame religion for everything, but this time that is where the blame belongs.
I agree to a large extent: Within Christianity suicide for any reason is wrong. This religious conviction is pushed on others. Even in a wider Western culture this conviction isn't held. In Greek philosophy the autonomy of the individual is more important, some allow suicide in case of terminal illness, some regard suicide as a way to maintain personal autonomy when forced into unethical behavior.
But I think Christianity has a point with their slippery-slope argument: There could be a dangerous move from
Re: (Score:2)
Fate is what it is, but government wants to control when you die because otherwise it messes up the spreadsheets.
Government wants to prevent us from having control of our own deaths. They want us to leave that to fate (except in case of a capital crime)
(But see my earlier post)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, that's not what you meant at all.
Don't make too many assumptions...
Re: (Score:2)
Gentlemen, I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Possibly my fault. A few minutes before 5am a car up the street started honking for minutes on end. There was also a fire and some small explosions. I'll go back to sleep soon.
Re: (Score:3)
"in the Netherlands where they've dismantled the bulk of their palliative care system" BULLSHIT Alert
"old people are afraid to go to the doctor" BULLSHIT Alert
"carry cards saying "Please don't euthanize me" BULLSHIT Alert
"their socialized medicine" BULLSHIT Alert
Re: (Score:2)
YOUR FACE alert.
3. According to Wikipedia (which is never wrong)
Not that the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
while his response was a little crude i have to agree with MRe_nl. It is not nearly as bad as you make out to be. The link to google shows only hits taken from a daily telegraph paper which quotes statements of a British researcher of a pressure group opposed to euthanasia and of course the unbiased religious groups ( I know we are the Sodom and Gomorrah). While it is true that around 6,000 people carry anti-euthanasia cards this is a minor group, such as the group which stipulated they do want to be euthan
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse moi for the late reply, but slashdot started giving me "guru meditation error messages" after my reply to your post yesterday.
"in the Netherlands where they've dismantled the bulk of their palliative care system"
That is simply not true. The amount and level of palliative care in the Netherlands is in the top 1% internationally.
Mainly a combination of wealth and socialist ideals.
Any recent cuts are in line with cuts on all fronts of the welfare state, and the privatization of healthcare.
"old people a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you need recalibration.
Inquiry launched as Dutch euthanasia cases surge by 13% in ONE year [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
First, your facts.
- You claim 4000 patients a year are euthanized. That's not true: the peak year was in 2009, with 2500 cases. It rises by about 200 a year, mostly in line with the rise of the age in the population as a whole. This is still WAY down from 1995 when the number was around 3600. Better palliative care and pain treatments have reduced the need for euthanasia.
- Every year more than 10000 people request euthanasia. Two thirds of those applications are denied outright. The others are granted but n
Re: (Score:2)
When querying for anti-euthanasia cards you will find exactly ONE hit in the Dutch language, from someone who asks if you can get one, on a forum. That's it. All other articles mentioning this stem from a publication on a catholic website. Not a Dutch one either. It's extreme rightwing scaremongering, using the fact that most people can't read Dutch to spread FUD about the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah mostly the second reason.
Personally I have never read anything about people getting forced euthanasia and personally I am happy that I have the choice of euthanasia if I should ever be in a situation that is so bleak that there is no way out, like a terminal illness.
Disclaimer: I am dutch.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the cases serviced by assisted suicide, "not suffering" is not an option. Even if given painkillers barely below the lethal dose, terminal stage cancer is still painful. This is a medical issue that is currently not solvable. Maybe we'll find a treatment for cancer in a few decades, but until then the only available choice is:
- suffering, then death
- death
Re: (Score:2)
Re:euthanasia vs the death penalty (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is true. In the final stages of cancer the pain is so overwhelming that if you are conscious you are in pain, not matter what drugs are given to you. Horrible, life destroying pain with no end.You would have to administer a general anaesthesia to stop the pain, but then the person isn't living any ways.
I sincerely hope you never learn the truth of this first hand, or due to a family member suffering so.
Administering enough analgesics to kill the patient is euthanasia.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
As I found out in my aunt's case of terminal cancer, a time comes, when the drugs administered are in doses that could kill (via liver failure, for example). The doses are then not increased, or alternate lighter drugs are given. In either case, the patient suffers extreme pain. The idea that modern medicine ensures no pain is a myth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Strap on a bomb and find out how quick the government will give you all the help you need.
You can take this machine away... (Score:2)
...when you can pry it away from my cold, dead fingers. Except darn it, my carpal tunnel is killing me too. Aaargghgghhh
An American Original (Score:2)
Only in the USA.
human rights (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, the debate on suicide is not about suffering, but about human rights. If we do not own our own physical bodies, what do we own at all? There is nothing more unequivocally yours than you. For a state to take control of your own body away from you is capital theft, akin to slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
A state also has the duty to safeguard and protect its citizens from harm. So while those threats usually seem to come from terrorism and environmental catastrophe, the ravages of severe depression can be just as formidable a foe.
Now, of course, like Kevorkian I believe if you can demonstrate a severely reduced quality-of-life (ex. a terminal, incurable illness wracked with immense pain), then you're not just depressed--you're suffering needlessly. Sometimes you lack so much control over your own suffering
His final score was: (Score:2)
1 goal, 130 assists.
What, too soon?
DG
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, actually some of those things are classified under YRO. Things that are not just don't fall into the scope of "news for nerds". You wouldn't debate OP if slashdot's tagline were "News for the color blind" just because color blind people care about their freedom too, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
I smell a new patent brewing...
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon timothy, this is pathetic. What the fuck does Dr. Jack Kevorkian dying have to do with news for nerds? I don't recall any other article here about him or even the topic of assisted suicide on this site at all.
Stick to your lane please. This is not stuff that matters.
Hasn't being a nerd ever made you suicidal? ;-)
I really shouldn't joke. Way too important a topic. Many, many facets to consider here.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the title wasn't clear enough for you not to click it.
Don't like this kind of news, don't read them :).
Re: (Score:2)
Keep up. I linked you to what many have considered is a merciful technological solution to suffering.
Maybe your religion wants to "prevent death" in a terminally ill cripple. Not all of us are that simplistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer assisted suicide is still suicide.
Nobody would refer to Dr. Kervorkian as simplistic, although some other adjectives seem to apply.
Kervorkian: The Rube Goldberg of Death [cornerstonemag.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What does death have to do with "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"?
I have some potentially alarming news for you . . .
Re: (Score:2)
You should have seen the early slashdot articles. And the comments too...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate the other news on slashdot.
I can understand some of the political debate here, especially if it has an impact on technology or science, and such things as world shaking events (like the Fukushima earthquake, no pun intended) because that's actual news that has a global impact. Hell, the nuclear debate sprung up, and there are global economical repercussions that have somewhat affected our profession. So it's not like I'm arguing for a complete lack of "other" news.
It's one of the last few places I can go to read comments that are not clearly based on a political agenda
In an article about a man who assisted in suicide you're going to have
Re: (Score:3)
can go to read comments that are not clearly based on a political agenda
(Emphasis mine).
I read that sentence to mean it's possible to find non-political discourse on slashdot, not that all discussions are non-political. Granted, there are still idiots who insist on dragging their own soapboxes into every single discussion regardless of relevance, but they haven't taken over yet.
Plus, if there were a group mentality you describe, there wouldn't be flame wars between rival ideologies on those very subjects you bring up. Whereas there are many such flame wars. You unwittingly d
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I read Slashdot for politics. If you don't like it, why don't you hide the politics articles in your options. Frankly, I think geeks are generally more rational than the common folk, and I value their opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
in reality this concerns geeks because most geeks are rational and do not support making people suffer simply so that other people may extend thei
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, the eternal "is this really news for nerds?" troll.
This is a philosophical debate in society; nerds are welcome. What you seem to want is "news for consumers".
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, but we are working on it.
Get over yourself. Seriously (Score:2)
I've been here since the start.
This story would ABSOLUTELY have been posted on "Old Slashdot".
It's a NEWS site. While there is a definate Internet / IT geek focus, that which is NEWS has always been fair game, even when it was slightly out of scope for a pure tech site.
Goodbye, AC. We won't miss you.
DG
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of Doctors who do that already. How many Doctors do you know would champion euthanasia?
Re: (Score:3)
He was a gun maker. He never pulled the trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
VERY nice comparison :)
Re: (Score:2)
The world needs more people who will champion just causes, I believe this is one of them.
I am lucky enough to live in a country where there are problems, but none bad enough that it needs such a champion (yet).