RIP Jack Kevorkian

[robkelk]

[size=smaller](May as well avoid the need to move the thread and just start it in "Politics and Other Fun".)[/size]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011 ... rkian.html]Dr. Jack Kevorkian died today at age 83. No word on whether the death was assisted.

Having watched my sister die from a long, lingering illness, and knowing that she never gave up hope, I can't say that I have any regret that Kevorkian is gone. He took that hope away from others when he gave them the option to die.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Wiregeek]

Well, I'm glad your isolated incident is globally applicable.

Mine isn't. But I'm sure my mother would rather have been able to clock out into a beautiful dream than die screaming as her liver failed.

RIP Jack Kevorkian.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Black Aeronaut]

Some terminal illnesses truly have no other option beyond an agonizing death. I take a rather dim view on suicide in general myself, but if I found out that I had some sort of illness that there was absolutely no possible cure for, then I'm gonna take a long hard look at my bucket list, do what I can to cross off as many line-items as possible, make sure all the legalese is in order, and then clock-out gracefully for the sake of myself and my loved ones.

RIP, Doctor. Even though the entire world did not recognize it, you did have good intentions.

[Ayiekie]

While recognising the possibilities for abuse of legal euthanasia, it is fundamentally unjust for the law to take away someone's right to die when and how they see fit. Neither the choice to live nor the choice to die should be forced on anyone.

[robkelk]

But I'm sure my mother would rather have been able to clock out into a beautiful dream than die screaming as her liver failed.

I didn't know that you can read minds, Wiredgeek... (What I know about my sister is what she told me, repeatedly.)

While recognising the possibilities for abuse of legal euthanasia, it is fundamentally unjust for the law to take away someone's right to die when and how they see fit. Neither the choice to live nor the choice to die should be forced on anyone.

And I've heard some third-hand reports (from news reports quoting grieving family members, so take them with a large gain of salt) that the choice was forced on some of these people. If that's true - I repeat, if - then he wasn't the saint that some right-to-die advocates claim.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Glidergun]

robkelk wrote:

---

He took that hope away from others when he gave them the option to die.

No he didn't. People who have that hope can simply choose not to be euthanized. Kevorkian was accommodating people who had already lost hope.

And I've heard some third-hand reports (from news reports quoting grieving family members, so take them with a large
gain of salt) that the choice was forced on some of these people. If
that's true - I repeat, if - then he wasn't the saint that some
right-to-die advocates claim.

That's kind of like saying
"I've heard reports (that you'd want to take with a large grain of
salt) that Barack Obama might not be a natural-born citizen. If that's
true, he shouldn't be the President." It is both obviously true and
deeply disingenuous.

[Epsilon]

I'm not a personal fan of euthanasia for a whole host of reasons; mainly related to the whole Catch-22 situation. I think a person in their right mind has the rigght to do what they will to their body, but then again if a person wants to die they can hardly be said to be in their right mind... It's a giant swirling pit of difficult moral choices and the only comparable situation I can think of is abortion.
Ultimately all I am willing to say is that this isn't the kind of situation where a blanket ban or endoresement is possible. Much like abortion there are some situations I can see it being not only justified but neccessary, and much like abortion I can see some situations where it should be prevented. The fuzzy grey middle is, unfortunetaly, very hard to define.
-------------
Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

I agree with Epsilon on this one. This also ties into a whole host of issues, such as people on artificial life support, sometimes they wake back up and sometimes they never do, it's very hard to say what to do in that case. Or people in their nineties who have lost their mobility and have suffered multiple strokes. Some of them just want to die in peace and with dignity while some want to struggle till the end. That should be their choice, on the other hand a suicidal teenager should not have that option but instead get counseling, which again gets very murky if they have some degenerative disease that will kill them within months. Overall a difficult and murky issue, and Kevorkian was no saint but he did the best he could.

In some ways he reminds me of Bush with the wild west attitude, but it's easier to admire in an activist rather than a world leader.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Sweno]

if a person wants to die they can hardly be said to be in their right mind.

Having both a grandparent who didn't pass easily, and having dealt with depression on a personal level, I think the above is circular logic (or possibly a tautology, it's late so I may be mixing up my terms). Saying that a person must be insane if they want to die is a very strong statement.

I am a firm believer in personal choice. If someone takes a look at their life, and makes the decision that they don't want to continue living, that is their choice.

If Jack Kevorkian (or someone else) offered euthanasia without any sort of socially acceptable framework to measure applicability*, then there are going to be cases where that person is blamed for pushing it on to those who shouldn't have died.

*There are going to be cases where we all agree that "yes, this person should be allowed to end their life". And there are going to be cases where the we all agree that a person should not have died. It's the vast middle ground of grey that causes the controversy.

Without some way to reduce that massive swath of gray to black and white (or at least a much smaller set of controversial cases), where we can all agree on the criteria that are being measured, any person or institution attempting to do the same will be inviting a firestorm onto themselves.

At the least I can say this:

He believed that some people should be allowed to end their own life.

His criteria that defined that set of people didn't mesh with a significant portion of the population.

He continued in his beliefs despite the bad press/negative impact it had on his life.

I don't have to agree with him, but I can respect him for that.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy

[Wiregeek]

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/ends-and-means

Hydorn, who started her business after watching her husband suffer a painful, lingering death from colon cancer, says her aim is to help people escape unbearable suffering. Her critics object that what seems unbearable one day may not look so bad the next. "You have to make sure they don't want to end their life because they are depressed," a psychiatrist recently told ABC News, "because depression is treatable."

That stance may sound cautious and compassionate, but it effectively strips people of the autonomy to decide for themselves when their lives are worth living. Suicide is not a medical procedure, and doctors have no special expertise to determine when it is the right choice.

"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Star Ranger4]

He believed that some people should be allowed to end their own life.

His criteria that defined that set of people didn't mesh with a significant portion of the population.

He continued in his beliefs despite the bad press/negative impact it had on his life.

I don't have to agree with him, but I can respect him for that.

And that I can agree with as well.  Well said, Sweno
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Epsilon]

Saying that a person must be insane if they want to die is a very strong statement.

If only it was a simple statement rather than a question. It's not something that there is anything approaching a simple solution to.
In related news: Sir Terry Pratchett Begins Process To Take His Own Life.
-----------------
Epsilon

[robkelk]

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377]I think that Dylan Thomas stated my position on this better than I ever could.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012