Jack Kevorkian: Hero or murderer?

[Johnboy60]

Jack Kevorkian — the assisted-suicide advocate known as "Dr. Death" — died peacefully at a Michigan hospital on Friday, at age 83. Kevorkian admitted to helping more than 130 terminally ill people commit suicide between 1990 and 2000, using injections, carbon monoxide, and his notorious "suicide machine." Things got complicated in 1998 when he recorded his role helping a man dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease commit suicide. Kevorkian was arrested, convicted, and sent to prison for second-degree murder, then paroled in 2007 after promising not to assist in any more suicides. Should he be remembered for killing people, or for helping people end their pain with dignity?

His own death proves Kevorkian was just a murderer: Jack Kevorkian was nothing but a serial killer, says Mark Noonan at Blogs for Victory. "If he was in any way sincere about what he did, he would have hooked himself up to one of his own infernal machines and offed himself when it became clear there was no cure" for his kidney and heart problems. But he went to a hospital, which is where "you go when you want someone, some how, to keep you alive," because you know life is precious, not something to be thrown away.

Jack Kevorkian: Hero or murderer? - The Week

 

[Ar Cosc]

I don't agree with Mark Noonan. Just because Kevorkian didn't want to end his own life doesn't mean that he couldn't support the right of others to make that choice. You don't have to disapprove of America to support free speech laws that allow people to criticise America.

 

[Wolseley]

Jack Kervorkian was a nut case who needed to be locked up as a public menace.

At the time he was on the loose, I used to wonder why, since we didn't allow madmen with knives to run amok among the general populace, stabbing whoever they wanted to target, we still allowed Jack to run around with his "suicide" machine, taking advantage of people who were suffering and talking them into letting him kill them.

I think a goodly part of why he remained free so long was due to his viscous lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, who was and is a truly, truly repellant human being. The man is just a slug, that's all there is to it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

At the time he was on the loose, I used to wonder why, since we didn't allow madmen with knives to run amok among the general populace, stabbing whoever they wanted to target, we still allowed Jack to run around with his "suicide" machine, taking advantage of people who were suffering and talking them into letting him kill them.

Funny, because last time I checked, the people had to kill themselves. Kevorkian merely provided the means to do it.

As for the OP, he was technically a murderer. However, I support what he was arguing for 100%, even if I don't support the illegal manner in which he did so. People should not be forced to suffer because other people dislike the idea of them killing themselves.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Jack Kervorkian was a nut case who needed to be locked up as a public menace.

At the time he was on the loose, I used to wonder why, since we didn't allow madmen with knives to run amok among the general populace, stabbing whoever they wanted to target, we still allowed Jack to run around with his "suicide" machine, taking advantage of people who were suffering and talking them into letting him kill them.

I think a goodly part of why he remained free so long was due to his viscous lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, who was and is a truly, truly repellant human being. The man is just a slug, that's all there is to it.

Surely the right to end your own life would fit in squarely with your libertarian ideal though. You can't say you want the government out of your life, but then say it has to tell other people they can't end theirs.

 

[Drekkan85]

Frankly, I have no problem with assisted suicide provided the person who wishes to die is ultimately the one that pushes the button. This takes away the murky question of "what happens if they change their mind after giving the ok but before the doctor kills them". This way, it's 100% their decision in the end.

 

[Wolseley]

Frankly, I have no problem with assisted suicide provided the person who wishes to die is ultimately the one that pushes the button. This takes away the murky question of "what happens if they change their mind after giving the ok but before the doctor kills them". This way, it's 100% their decision in the end.

Ok, so the next time your mother is depressed, you have no problem with a guy coming in to her living room with a loaded .45, cocking back the hammer, handing it to her, and saying, "I can't pull the trigger for you, but I'll provide you with the means."?

That having been said, you don't need to be "assisted" at suicide. Good grief, you don't have to have somebody come into your house and set up a complex machine to do the job. Buy a shotgun and one shell at the next swap meet; drink a can of drain cleaner; drive your car off a bridge. Swallow three bottles of Nytol. The possibilities are endless.

 

[Vasallus]

This isn't original, I saw it somewhere else, but....If you need assistance, it isn't suicide.

I vote "murderer."

 

[Marek]

That having been said, you don't need to be "assisted" at suicide. Good grief, you don't have to have somebody come into your house and set up a complex machine to do the job. Buy a shotgun and one shell at the next swap meet; drink a can of drain cleaner; drive your car off a bridge. Swallow three bottles of Nytol. The possibilities are endless.

That could be difficult if your a quadriplegic. Or bed ridden. Or you want to die peacefully. Or you want to die without additional pain and suffering. Etc.

If someone's in pain and wants to end it and has no real chance of recovery, why would you want the government to step in and say, "no, your suffering must continue. Deal with it," instead of giving that person the freedom to decide when and how they end that suffering?

 

[revanneosl]

My nightmare is to be conscious & aware, in terrible pain, and so injured or disabled that I am unable to end my own life. Dr. Kevorkian was a hero. In 300 years he will be a Saint.

 

[Vasallus]

My nightmare is to be conscious & aware, in terrible pain, and so injured or disabled that I am unable to end my own life. Dr. Kevorkian was a hero. In 300 years he will be a Saint.

Not bloody likely.

 

[Btodd]

To answer the OP- hero.

How anyone could think they have a right to dictate that another person continues to suffer hopelessly until they die is beyond my comprehension. Why do we 'put animals down' when they're suffering, exactly?

And human beings have the choice to make; animals do not. It's simply the humane, compassionate thing to allow them to do.

 

[Marek]

Not bloody likely.

Obviously not in a literal Catholic sense, but he will be known as an early champion of a noble cause. I have no doubt about that.

 

[yasic]

My vote: Hero

 

[oldbetang]

Neither.

 

[Wolseley]

That could be difficult if your a quadriplegic. Or bed ridden. Or you want to die peacefully. Or you want to die without additional pain and suffering. Etc.

If someone's in pain and wants to end it and has no real chance of recovery, why would you want the government to step in and say, "no, your suffering must continue. Deal with it," instead of giving that person the freedom to decide when and how they end that suffering?

For one thing, while the person who wants to die can be excused for being in such a state of pain as to wish death, the person helping them is committing murder, which places their immortal soul in a state of mortal sin and thus, hell, if they die unrepentant. I wouldn't want to place anyone in that position.

I realize everyone is not Catholic and therefore does not hold the same views. These, however, are those of the Church and therefore mine.

 

[Btodd]

For one thing, while the person who wants to die can be excused for being in such a state of pain as to wish death, the person helping them is committing murder, which places their immortal soul in a state of mortal sin and thus, hell, if they die unrepentant. I wouldn't want to place anyone in that position.

I realize everyone is not Catholic and therefore does not hold the same views. These, however, are those of the Church and therefore mine.

Is it murder to put an animal out of its misery? Humans at least have the ability to make their own choices...but we do this with animals, and they aren't capable of making the choice.

It is not 'murder' to give someone the means by which to end their own suffering, of their own free will. It's not as if Dr. Kevorkian shot them in the head.


Btodd

 

[Vasallus]

Is it murder to put an animal out of its misery? Humans at least have the ability to make their own choices...but we do this with animals, and they aren't capable of making the choice.

It is not 'murder' to give someone the means by which to end their own suffering, of their own free will. It's not as if Dr. Kevorkian shot them in the head.


Btodd

Comparing animals to humans is ridiculous.

 

[Btodd]

Comparing animals to humans is ridiculous.

That makes the problem worse for anyone who thinks humans shouldn't be allowed to end their own suffering. If animals are 'just animals', then why do we put them out of their misery?

If the comparison is ridiculous, that's in essence saying that human suffering isn't as important as animals suffering. If it's compassionate for animals, then it's at least as compassionate for human beings, who are able to make their own decisions on the matter.


Btodd

 

[Wolseley]

Is it murder to put an animal out of its misery? Humans at least have the ability to make their own choices...but we do this with animals, and they aren't capable of making the choice.

Animals do not possess immortal souls, and as such cannot be compared with human beings. I realize that your atheist logo means that will not agree with this assessment, and that's fine, I am merely explaining my view of the matter as a practicing Catholic.

It is not 'murder' to give someone the means by which to end their own suffering, of their own free will. It's not as if Dr. Kevorkian shot them in the head.

The Church disagrees:

"Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2277.)

Again, as an atheist, you are certainly under no compulsion to agree with the Church, or with me, for that matter. Likewise, I am under no obligation to agree with you.