STORM2K

Assisted Suicide Advocate Jack Kevorkian Reportedly Dies at Michigan Hospital

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/03/as ... -hospital/


DEVELOPING: Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan pathologist who championed physician-assisted suicides, reportedly died early Friday after being hospitalized with kidney problems and pneumonia.

The 83-year-old Kevorkian died at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich., his lawyer, Mayer Morganroth, confirmed to the Detroit Free Press.

Kevorkian died from a pulmonary thrombosis when a blood clot from his leg broke free and lodged in his heart, the newspaper reports.

Kevorkian was released from a Michigan prison in 2007 after serving eight years for second-degree murder. He claims to have assisted in at least 130 suicides.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/03/as ... z1ODaWqw00

Think how many millions the state of Michigan spent to put him in jail while at the same time police and schools we're getting budget cuts.

His death was unassistated....suprising after he killed all those people..you think he would be mad enough to take his own life! have fun down where it is hot!

have fun down where it is hot!


If you believe in up and down, he'll be UP for sure.

Honestly, I really don't have a problem with what he did...we do it to our pets all the time. He went to jail for not letting terminal patients suffer basically IMO.

Well said Category 5

Category 5 wrote:Honestly, I really don't have a problem with what he did...we do it to our pets all the time. He went to jail for not letting terminal patients suffer basically IMO.

Bingo! At the very least he brought awareness to dying with dignity and quality of life.

RIP Dr. Kevorkian.

I agree 100% with Cat

Just curious about all these favorable responses about Dr. Kervorkian, and not one single remark to the contrary in 5 days.

1. Does everybody feel we are allowed to break the law, if the cause is something we feel is just, or that if we find a group to agree with us, that it is then OK to do? So, if the Nazi Party members (yes, they are still around) in your county should decide that you are a threat and must die, and they gather several who agree, can they then legally shoot you and not be punished? Wouldn't they argue that since they were right, the law shouldn't apply to them? What's the difference?

2. Does no one here have religious issues with humans controlling when death occurs, or that perhaps man is created in God's image and therefore has a spiritual 'soul', differentiating him from animals? So that would mean none of you are Christian, right? Because the Bible doesn't agree with you, and you can't pay attention to just the Scriptures you like and ignore the part you don't like. That is creating a god in Your image, the way you want him to be, which is the definition of idolatry.

bvigal wrote:Just curious about all these favorable responses about Dr. Kervorkian, and not one single remark to the contrary in 5 days.

1. Does everybody feel we are allowed to break the law, if the cause is something we feel is just, or that if we find a group to agree with us, that it is then OK to do? So, if the Nazi Party members (yes, they are still around) in your county should decide that you are a threat and must die, and they gather several who agree, can they then legally shoot you and not be punished? Wouldn't they argue that since they were right, the law shouldn't apply to them? What's the difference?

First of all comparing Dr Kervorkian to the Nazi party is so far off-base it's not even funny. How can you comare the systematic murder of millions to assisted suicide is beyond me. As to the legal part, Dr Kervorkian believed he was doing was worth the price he paid by being jailed for his actions. Personally I believe that we should all have the right to decide in certain circumstances when enough is enough. That decision should be between each person and their God.

2. Does no one here have religious issues with humans controlling when death occurs, or that perhaps man is created in God's image and therefore has a spiritual 'soul', differentiating him from animals? So that would mean none of you are Christian, right? Because the Bible doesn't agree with you, and you can't pay attention to just the Scriptures you like and ignore the part you don't like. That is creating a god in Your image, the way you want him to be, which is the definition of idolatry.

Please quote what you say are the Bible's views on assisted suicide. I've never seen anything of the kind. The scriptures are subject to all kinds of interpretation. Just look at all the different translations of the Bible.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian really liked attention from what I recall. If patients want to die with dignity, let them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

bvigal wrote:1. Does everybody feel we are allowed to break the law, if the cause is something we feel is just, or that if we find a group to agree with us, that it is then OK to do?

2. Does no one here have religious issues with humans controlling when death occurs,

1) We pick and choose which laws to follow and which to break every day.

2) Not a bit when it comes to oneself. We should definitely have the right to choose when we go.

mf_dolphin wrote:

bvigal wrote:Just curious about all these favorable responses about Dr. Kervorkian, and not one single remark to the contrary in 5 days.

1. Does everybody feel we are allowed to break the law, if the cause is something we feel is just, or that if we find a group to agree with us, that it is then OK to do? So, if the Nazi Party members (yes, they are still around) in your county should decide that you are a threat and must die, and they gather several who agree, can they then legally shoot you and not be punished? Wouldn't they argue that since they were right, the law shouldn't apply to them? What's the difference?

First of all comparing Dr Kervorkian to the Nazi party is so far off-base it's not even funny. How can you comare the systematic murder of millions to assisted suicide is beyond me. As to the legal part, Dr Kervorkian believed he was doing was worth the price he paid by being jailed for his actions. Personally I believe that we should all have the right to decide in certain circumstances when enough is enough. That decision should be between each person and their God.

Oh that is not what I meant AT ALL. That would be stupid to compare him to nazis. I was only making an analogy to law-breaking, the sample means nothing, but it is illustrative. Sort of like, if I support freedom of speech, then I must support that person who says what I absolutely abhor. So, likewise (or at least the theory I was posing the question to), if I support breaking the law based upon belief, then must I support someone else's right to break the law based upon their belief, no matter how much I hate it? If whatever law that person believes he should break is something you and I think is horrible, do we still have any right to make him obey the law, or punish him if he doesn't? For that matter, who has to obey any laws? Can a cannibal justify dismembering to fit me in the pot on the grounds of his religion? If someone decides on their own to break the law because they don't agree with it, isn't that anarchy? Don't we have a democratic republic, where we agree to obey laws and change them through the respresentative system that is set up?

mf_dolphin wrote:

bvigal wrote:2. Does no one here have religious issues with humans controlling when death occurs, or that perhaps man is created in God's image and therefore has a spiritual 'soul', differentiating him from animals? So that would mean none of you are Christian, right? Because the Bible doesn't agree with you, and you can't pay attention to just the Scriptures you like and ignore the part you don't like. That is creating a god in Your image, the way you want him to be, which is the definition of idolatry.

Please quote what you say are the Bible's views on assisted suicide. I've never seen anything of the kind. The scriptures are subject to all kinds of interpretation. Just look at all the different translations of the Bible.

The Bible does address man being created in God's image, and never says anything about animals being created in God's image, a rather clear distinction. My point was that if one uses the argument that assisted suicide is OK for humans just like for animals, that sounds as if there is no distinction between humans and animals. It's always been my understanding that Christians believe humans are different from animals. Virtually all scholars through the ages agree this isn't just referring to physical appearance, but much more.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:26-27 NKJV)

...and that taking a human life is wrong because of being in the image of God...
Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. (Gen 9:6 NKJV)

Of course the Bible does not address assisted suicide. But tell me this. How much "assistance" is allowed, and who is going to decide that? How do you know the patient wanted it? How do you know the doctor didn't just decide to do it? If it's legal, who can punish him? Should the new law allowing this include a clause that the patient must SIGN SOMETHING with a notary public? What if that person trusts the doctor that they won't recover, but the doctor is wrong? I know several people alive and breathing who were either badly injured or terminally ill, and many doctors said wouldn't last the night, or 2 days, or the week, and readily admit they have no explaination why the person didn't die. So sometimes medical science can be wrong.

There are, however, some scriptures which apply to the theme of deciding for ourselves when we should die. Job's wife urged him to put himself out of his pain and misery by commiting suicide, he refused, and the scripture records in same verse that he did not sin with his lips (i.e. he was righteous in his response).

And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!" But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. (Job 2:6-10 NKJV)

So Job might be considered a lesson on other things, but aruguably not applying to euthanasia, since, as you wisely point out, there ARE differences in interpretation. So let me ask this question... Does the Bible, by any translation, teach the nature of God? And is one aspect of His nature, by any interpretation, His sovereignty? Or that He created everything?

The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. (Job 33:4 NKJV)

If He IS sovereign, then how do we rightly decide the end of our days, which He has already numbered?

And so, I ask you, God, why pick on me? There's no way a human can be completely pure. Our time on earth is brief; the number of our days is already decided by you. (Job 14:3-5 CEV)

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa 139:16 NASB)

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. (NKJV)

but with your own eyes you saw my body being formed. Even before I was born, you had written in your book everything I would do. (CEV)

*Note: This verse DOES differ among translations, so I went to the original text word meanings, and can see why.

(KJV+) Thine eyesH5869 did seeH7200 my substance, yet being unperfect;H1564 and inH5921 thy bookH5612 allH3605 my members were written,H3789 which in continuanceH3117 were fashioned,H3335 when as yet there was noneH3808 H259 of them.
(NASB+) Your eyesH5869 have seenH7200 my unformedH1564 substanceH1564; And in Your bookH5612 were allH3605 writtenH3789 The daysH3117 that were ordainedH3335 for me, When as yet there was not oneH259 of them.

Let's look at the Hebrew word H3117: my 3 dictionaries agree, the root is yom, (Strongs) From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

You may be familiar with this word, used in the holiday name Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement. So, I can see the reason for some differing by translation, but the idea of days seems pretty clear.

I know that the main purpose of the Bible is to teach us Who He Is, and secondly, how to live to please Him. If He is God, created everything, is sovereign, holy, mighty, and in control, and if I have given my life to Him, entirely, all control, everything (= a Christian), then how can I take it back? I can't. Also, a lesson learned long ago, God has put us under certain authorities on earth, i.e. the government, our employer, (render unto Caesar, etc.) If I decide to break the law, unless I am doing it under His guidance and/or to keep from violating God's law, then I am, again, thumbing my nose at His sovereignty.

Last but certainly not least, is God's standard for us, by which He will judge: immutable, unbendable, and of course, unattainable - why we need a Savior. That is the 10 Commandments. Exodus 20:13 Thou shall not murder.

Murder translates a Jewish term for UNLAWFUL taking of a life. Kill translates from a different Jewish term for lawfully taking a life. Too much material for here, but anyone can look it up.
And then of course, Jesus said in Matthew 5:21 that even anger without cause is murder.
(There are wonderful FREE, downloadable Bible software on the internet, or use right online and get all the dictionaries, commentaries, etc. you could ever need without spending a dime.)

Honestly, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to provoke you, or anyone. It was purposed to cause deep pondering. So many things in this world are 95% good, with 5% evil, or 90/10, or 80/20, we are compromising ourselves away - will we accept 50/50 some day? The Antichrist, we're told, will be very attractive and appealing, the world will love him! Will that small percentage of evil showing through be noticed by anyone? Will I discern correctly? This whole topic on Kervokian really didn't strike me right away, but I could not stop thinking about it - for days just couldn't forget, it wouldn't go away! (He wouldn't leave me alone about it.) Sometimes I'm prodded to draw a line and stand it. I bear no ill will.

I have gone through making the decision or being part of making the decision to allow someone to pass away 3 times in my life. I guess some would liken that to assisted suicide. I don't. I knew each persons wishes before the decisions had to be made and I at least attempted to follow through on their stated wishes. One of those times the decision was delayed due to what I consider malpractice by the paramedics who revived the person after instructions not to do so prior to transport(making a long story short)if something happened on the way to the hospital. What I am saying is that it is a very slippery slope to work on, but that I do think it is imperative that we follow the wishes of those we are attending to. LOTS of tough and some legal questions(don't get me started on this part) involved in this which we may never have answers for.

No, I don't consider that at ALL like assisted suicide. Allowing someone to pass naturally without artificial support mechanisms such as breathing assistance is respectful, like you say, and honorable. I would have been livid about someone ignoring a DNS order! You poor thing, what a tough decision to make, and 3 times is more than most people have to face that!

Maybe some have a different impression of Dr. Death than I do...
-In the late 80s Kevorkian built a machine that helped people to commit suicide by giving them a narcotic followed by a lethal dose of potassium chloride.
-1990- 1st client was Jane Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient, from Portland Oregon. Since then he has helped over 130 people kill themselves.
-In 1998 Kevorkian stepped outside of the boundaries of passive euthanasia to active euthanasia when he gave a man lethal injection, rather than simply providing the means for the man to kill himself. He videotaped this and it was aired on CBS's Sixty Minutes. He dared prosecutors to charge him with murder. In 1999 prosecutors found him guilty of murder and sentenced him 10 to 25 years in prison.

... so my issue with him would be like if I arrived at the hospital/nursing home to visit my father and was met by Dr. Death, who told me my father was dead, that he "decided" to end his suffering and Dr. Death obliged.

that he "decided" to end his suffering and Dr. Death obliged.

For which you should be grateful.

WeatherGuesser wrote:

that he "decided" to end his suffering and Dr. Death obliged.

For which you should be grateful.

Really? No matter what the situation? (because no situation is stipulated, so you imply that for every possible situation, it's a good thing) No matter my father's illness, prognosis, age, mental capacity, amount of suffering or lack thereof, or his wishes which are obvious to me via my life-long knowledge of his personality? I should be 'grateful' that a perfect stranger has 'dispatched' him, like a bag of garbage, without consulting me, his next of kin? What if I am convinced it was NOT my father's wish? Is it still a good thing, getting rid an old person, an undesirable drain on society, is that it? God help us all!

Well anyway, thanks for perfectly illustrating my reservations about making this practice legal!

without consulting me, his next of kin? What if I am convinced it was NOT my father's wish?

It's not really up to the next of kin.

First of all, the bible has NOTHING to do with the LEGAL IMPLICATIONS of this.

Second of all, I have no moral issue with what he did, the law is the law no matter how silly it is, just saying, morally I think he did nothing wrong.

You know after reading all of this I see the other side of the story and believe what he did wasn't so bad...What if tha twas thier wish..as a person don't they have that choice of doing what they want to do with thier life.