BREAKING NEWS: Assisted Suicide Jack Kevorkian Reported dies

[SaskatchewanScreamer]

This is where a living will (with hopefully more legal options than now) comes in ...... the person, when still of sound mind and body, decides in writing what they would want if, and when, they face unspeakable pain, etc.

Their life, their death, their choice!

[vbhoutex]

This is where a living will (with hopefully more legal options than now) comes in ...... the person, when still of sound mind and body, decides in writing what they would want if, and when, they face unspeakable pain, etc.

Their life, their death, their choice!

Sometimes even that is not enough. We found out that the one on file with the hospital had no weight with the ambulance and vice versa. IMO, that is pure BS!! That is part of the reason we had the problem we did with EMS. The legal stuff with this can be very complicated.

[Category 5]

It's a law that needs to be fixed, a terminal patient has every right to end his/her suffering. And I don't care what the Lawmakers or especially what the bible says. I've watched loved ones die of cancer, and to not allow them to end their suffering is effectively torture (which, btw, we are against in this country am I right?).

[vbhoutex]

It's a law that needs to be fixed, a terminal patient has every right to end his/her suffering. And I don't care what the Lawmakers or especially what the bible says. I've watched loved ones die of cancer, and to not allow them to end their suffering is effectively torture (which, btw, we are against in this country am I right?).

I do care what the Bible says, but basically you and I are in 100% agreement as far as the right of a person to determine when they will end their suffering. When we made the decision with my father it was a no brainer. After we told the doctors that it was time, which they agreed with, they and then we told Dad that we were ending any artificial support. He nodded his agreement and we progressed from there till he passed with only morphine being administered for comfort so it was also partly his decision. It is the hardest and the easiest decision I have ever had to make all at the same time.

[coriolis]

I think that the biggest thing that Dr. Kevorkian did wrong is that he used the suffering of individuals to advance his agenda and become a celebrity. He could have just quietly and discretely done what he believed in. He didn't have to agree to do interviews and become so well known.

As David mentioned above, end-of-life decisions and actions often get into the gray areas of morality and legality. I think that many doctors have faced situations where they made tough ethical decisions and may have ended up on a side of the fence that they didn't like. In these situations the privacy and wishes of the patient should be respected. It seems like Dr. Kevorkian was seeking notoriety. Possibly he wanted to change the public perception and even the laws. He might have seen himself as a sacrificial person for the cause. If that's the case, I guess he got what he wanted. I'm not sure whether his efforts will be seen as sucessful.

[Category 5]

It's a law that needs to be fixed, a terminal patient has every right to end his/her suffering. And I don't care what the Lawmakers or especially what the bible says. I've watched loved ones die of cancer, and to not allow them to end their suffering is effectively torture (which, btw, we are against in this country am I right?).

I do care what the Bible says, but basically you and I are in 100% agreement as far as the right of a person to determine when they will end their suffering. When we made the decision with my father it was a no brainer. After we told the doctors that it was time, which they agreed with, they and then we told Dad that we were ending any artificial support. He nodded his agreement and we progressed from there till he passed with only morphine being administered for comfort so it was also partly his decision. It is the hardest and the easiest decision I have ever had to make all at the same time.

You ain't lyin about that.

I don't know about anyone else here, but if I'm dying of cancer, radiation is no longer effective, and I'm in constant agony, either someone euthanizes me or I do it myself, I don't see why people think it's so morally wrong if there's INFORMED CONSENT. (Mentally unstable people are obviously a different story)

[WeatherGuesser]

^^ I'm not even going the radiation route. I have no intention of paying the medical industry very much of anything at all. If I have to go in for some unknown illness and it turns out to be that, I'm done. Turn the lights out.

[angelwing]

My mother was not terminal, however the hospital had called me to tell me they had to disconnect her from life support when her brain swelled and PA state law required them to "turn the machine off"

This was back on April 1, 1998...if it was not her telling me my whole life that she did not want to live on a machine I probably would not have done it..state law be damned

To this day I still feel like I killed her even though I know she didnt want to live that way..it totally goes against my beliefs, but its what she wanted.

Still regret it

[bvigal]

Angelwing, so sorry you had to be put in that position! I'm sure your mother understands.


Since I originally asked the question, perhaps that's why it feels necessary to straighten out what sounds like misunderstanding by some.

1. (as I stated earlier) there is a difference between turning off machines that artificially prolong life, and that of injecting poison. Making someone as comfortable as possible - like administer pain meds and fluid, is not artificially prolonging life, it's simply being humane. What I was referring to when I posed the questions was ONLY PERTAINING TO injecting poison or using a gun to blow someone's brains out.

2. I NEVER SAID that the Bible had anything to do with legal (civil law) implications. The Bible isn't why Kervorkian was serving a prison sentence. If you look, there are 2 separate quesions I posed. The first was about civil disobedience - breaking the law. In the second question I asked about beliefs of Christians here - which means believers of other faiths and non-believers can keep themselves out of that discussion, it didn't apply to you.

It's obvious my gross error, that of assuming everyone has the same background understanding of the whole debate which raged around kervokian at the time. That was stupid of me, many here were children, many others may have had only a brief exposure to the most sensational headlines.

There is a difference between respecting the patient's wishes or implementing a legal system whereby the patient's wishes (or that of the family, if the patient is incapacitated) are not respected.

Many legal experts seemed to feel that writing a law to allow people to help someone decide when they want to die, and then help them do it, while it might be a 'good thing' in a majority of cases, could also shield a minority and establish legal precident to allow govt. agencies or rogue health care provers to simply start eliminating undesirable/costly members of society.

You think of the residents of mental institutions, homeless shelters, nursing homes, and the multitude of homeless with some mental health issues. It wouldn't take much effort on the part of an evil person to talk some of them into ending their life, or do it without asking (as in several nursing home cases in the past several years) where someone sees themselves a doing society a favor. You don't want to have a law in effect that protects them, even if in other cases it is a good thing.

The result of all the debate at the time was not a law to make it legal for someone to "assist" in suicide. But the debate so highlighted the recognition of patient's rights, it did result in laws to allow DNR orders to hold up in court, etc. As you've heard from Marshall, that is still an imperfect system.

[Category 5]

People going rogue with assisted suicides is a really good point and a major concern IMO, we aren't dealing with a society of reasonable people sadly.

[mf_dolphin]

Assisted suicide has been around long before Dr Kervorkian. Many physicians and nurses have quitely assisted patients carry out thier final wishes. The difference was that they did it quitely. For the most part, Dr Kervorkian made us talk about the issue in public for the first time which is a good thing in my opinion. As to his specific history, there's no doubt that when he directly administered the fatal injection in one case he broke the law. He did it with full knowledge and was convicted as he should have been. In several other cases he was charged and acquited. That's the way our legal system works and I think it also shows there's a lot of support in the country to have existing laws changed. Several states have done so and at the same time tried to place limits and protections in place for the good of all. As to the moral issues, I believe God gave us a brain and expected us to use it. The final decision to end ones life is a decision that ultimately only the individual concerned can make. That should be an informed decision but it should be their decision to make.

[SaskatchewanScreamer]

Thank goodness for the doctors that do "quietly assist a terminal patient's wishes":


Mr Bray said: "A dying man was thus refused three of his five requests and I feel strongly that those who, for whatever reason, oppose assisted death should see for themselves exactly what torment those who desire a speedy release from their suffering actually go through."

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... z1PJDjM4zN \

[Category 5]

There was a really good House episode that kind of centered around this issue.

Upon further review, Season 3 Episode 3.

[Ptarmigan]

People going rogue with assisted suicides is a really good point and a major concern IMO, we aren't dealing with a society of reasonable people sadly.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was self promoting and obsessed with attention.