Dr Death dead at 83 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Dr Death dead at 83

CruisnGrrl

Well-known member
Site Supporter
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rkian-dies-at-83/story-fn3dxix6-1226069085157

US 'Doctor Death' Jack Kevorkian dies at 83
From: AFP June 04, 2011 7:36AM

THE American pathologist, Jack Kevorkian, dubbed "Doctor Death" for helping dozens of terminally-ill people to commit suicide, died overnight at the age of 83 in a Michigan hospital.

"It was peaceful, he didn't feel a thing," his attorney Mayer Morganroth said of Mr Kevorkian, who had been hospitalised with kidney and heart problems.

The assisted-suicide advocate apparently died after a blood clot from his leg broke free and lodged in his heart.

There were no artificial attempts to keep Mr Kevorkian alive, said Morganroth, who was with Mr Kevorkian's niece Ava Janus at the bedside. There are no plans for a public memorial.

Mr Kevorkian, who claims he actively helped 130 people to die, spent more than eight years in jail for the murder of a man whose videotaped assisted suicide was aired on national television.



Mr Kevorkian's suicide machines and videos of patients begging him to help them die forced the United States to confront the ethical issues surrounding how best to treat the pain and suffering of the terminally ill.

"I have no regrets, none whatsoever," he told CNN in an interview last year, of his decision to go public with his methods and his suicide machines in 1990.

The desperation that drove dozens of dying people to travel to Michigan to be hooked up to his "mercy" machines -- sometimes in motels, sometimes in Mr Kevorkian's Volkswagen van -- helped convince many of the need for a right-to-die.

It also led to an expansion of the use of hospice care where the terminally ill can have more control over their final days and shift treatment away from medical intervention and towards pain management.

But Mr Kevorkian's antics alienated others and fuelled intense criticism.

He dropped bodies off at hospitals and dumped them in parks and abandoned buildings. He brandished the kidneys of a man he'd helped to die during a 1998 press conference, saying "first come, first served," a reference to organ donation.

"My ultimate aim is to make euthanasia a positive experience," he told the New York Times in 1990 after performing his first assisted suicide with Janet Adkins, a teacher from Oregon who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.

"I'm trying to knock the medical profession into accepting its responsibilities, and those responsibilities include assisting their patients with death."

The American Medical Association in 1995 urged Michigan's attorney general to put a stop to Mr Kevorkian, calling him "a reckless instrument of death" who "poses a great threat to the public."

He was charged with murder four times, only to have three juries acquit him and one case collapse in mistrial.

Then he taped himself actually injecting drugs into ALS patient Thomas Youk -- even though he had been stripped of his medical license -- and sent a copy to CBS's 60 Minutes in 1998.

Critics called it a snuff film. The judge overseeing the case accused Mr Kevorkian of arrogance and disrespect for society.

Mr Kevorkian was released from jail in 2007 after agreeing not to participate in any more assisted suicides but he did not fade from public view.

Al Pacino delivered an Emmy Award-winning performance as Mr Kevorkian in the 2010 HBO biopic "You Don't Know Jack."

"He turned away the vast majority of people who came to him, he didn't take money for what he did, and he did not see these patients as people he was killing," Mr Pacino told the New York Times before the film's premiere.

"He saw them as people whose pain he could relieve."

Mr Kevorkian's campaign to legalise doctor-assisted suicide has had limited success.

While his native Michigan rejected a proposal shortly before he went to trial, the state of Oregon passed the Death With Dignity Act in 1997 and the state of Washington followed suit in 2008.

Some 525 patients in Oregon and 135 in Washington have died after ingesting lethal doses of medication prescribed by their doctors since the laws were enacted, state records show.

Yet doctor-assisted suicide emerged as the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's 2011 values and beliefs poll which was released on Tuesday, with Americans divided 45 per cent versus 48 per cent over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong.

hate him or like him he brought the idea that you didn't have to suffer to death to the world.
 
It is a man to mourn. I greatly respected him and I hope one day to have the freedom he fought for. :(
 
I respect what he did too. It may be a bit of a rub from a religious perspective in my case, but as a human being, I give him the thumbs up.
 
i suspect that 50 years from now, when our society has finally progressed far enough, people will look back on kevorkian as a pioneer. . .

no question that euthanasia needs to be regulated and controlled against abuses, but terminally ill people should have it as an option, a dignified way to end their lives.

rip
 
I'm fine with euthanasia, as long as I'm the one picking.

You'd most likely be upset if I picked you.

There is too much potential for abuse with it in my mind.
 
I'm fine with euthanasia, as long as I'm the one picking.

You'd most likely be upset if I picked you.

There is too much potential for abuse with it in my mind.

Euthanasia has been openly-accepted practice in Holland for two or three decades already, and formal regulations covering it have been in law since 2002.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act" from 2002. It states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care.[1] These criteria concern the patient's request, the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the applied method of ending life.[1] To demonstrate their compliance, the Act requires physicians to report euthanasia to a review committee.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
 
I'm fine with euthanasia, as long as I'm the one picking.

You'd most likely be upset if I picked you.

There is too much potential for abuse with it in my mind.

the fact that there are several countries around the world where euthanasia is permitted suggests that our society's objection is one based on current values structure, not on a purely legal basis or a potential for abuse. values shift and change.

glib responses to this issue obscure what is, imho, a legitimate debate on human rights, specifically related to security of the person; euthanasia as an option for the terminally ill should be explored.
 
Having worked in a hospital and seen what some patients, who shouldnt be here anymore but are, look like.... I highly respect this mans work.
Some people are forced to live these days.... shouldn't we have the choice?

I hope someone else picks up the torch of being the adovocate for this cause.
 
I'm not being glib. Of course it is based upon values. Everything is based upon values, and yes values change.
But our most important value must be the right to live.
So who gets to decide? Where do you draw the line? This issue is a lot thornier than abortion, because you need to dehumanize an adult human being.
I respect the way that Kevorkian worked in that he knew he would be charged with murder, so he crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's.
But to socialize the practice is repugnant to me. How and who decides which people don't look like they should be here?
Incurable disease? What if it is cured next year? Should your doctor decide? What if his loved one could use your heart?
Unbearable pain? How much is unbearable? Brain damage? Mental retardation? Non contributing members of society?
 
But to socialize the practice is repugnant to me. How and who decides which people don't look like they should be here?
Incurable disease? What if it is cured next year? Should your doctor decide? What if his loved one could use your heart?
Unbearable pain? How much is unbearable? Brain damage? Mental retardation? Non contributing members of society?
Why should socializing euthanasia be repugnant?

Key to any of this is ensuring that the person, not the doctors or friends or family, decides and does so after full disclosure, as per the Dutch regulations listed below:
The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

  • the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
  • the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
  • the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
  • there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
  • the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
  • the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
Note that parents cannot choose to euthanize their children - they can only consent to a child's (age 12 to 16) choice, and then only after the child's request goes through the same full examining committee and process that any other request must go through. Similarly, if you are not of sound mind yourself, you cannot give legal consent to euthanasia, nor can anyone else give consent on your behalf.

All of those requirements work to help ensure that it is the patient who is making the choices, and not some other well- or ill-meaning person.
 
Last edited:
I'm not being glib. Of course it is based upon values. Everything is based upon values, and yes values change.
But our most important value must be the right to live.
So who gets to decide? Where do you draw the line? This issue is a lot thornier than abortion, because you need to dehumanize an adult human being.
I respect the way that Kevorkian worked in that he knew he would be charged with murder, so he crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's.
But to socialize the practice is repugnant to me. How and who decides which people don't look like they should be here?
Incurable disease? What if it is cured next year? Should your doctor decide? What if his loved one could use your heart?
Unbearable pain? How much is unbearable? Brain damage? Mental retardation? Non contributing members of society?

i think it is a little ironic that you term euthanasia as "to dehumanize an adult human being".

i would tend to believe the opposite is mostly true in euthanasia. . .physician assisted suicide is usually a consensual act requested by the intended 'victim' quite often to maintain their human dignity and end suffering before they reach the point of losing their humanity. doctors are there to confirm the prognosis, and then facilitate the act. the patient and/or a living will should be the genesis of the process.

no question, it is not an easy conversation to have, but let's have the discourse--let's find out what are the parameters under which euthanasia is deemed acceptable.

i cannot believe that people would deny it regardless of circumstances.
 
Kevorkian single-handedly changed the way I think about a lot of issues, through a single radio interview. Years back, when I was in university, I heard him interviewed (maybe it was on CBC?). At the time I thought I had all the answers and had everything figured out. A lot of my thinking was immature and came from a life of learning within a certain religious education system.

I suddenly heard a man who was supposed to be a monster, articulating a clear and consistent point of view based on a rational set of personal principles. It suddenly dawned on me that maybe intelligent people could see important issues in totally different ways, and base their point of view on reason and logical thought, while at the same time maintaining a system of values that recognized things like dignity and humanity. It shook me to think that maybe Catholic school didn't teach me all the answers, and maybe the Bible didn't have a solution to every ethical problem. Maybe in the end, regular people need to figure out the answers to these thorny things using their intellect and reason as a compass for right and wrong, instead of the black-and-white "values" that religions teach.

I didn't realize how that interview had affected me, until his passing last week. As a result of it, I've been able to listen to people that have a conflicting or unconventional point of view, a lot better than I did before. And I've been able to test my own beliefs by playing devil's advocate and challenging my own preconceived notions of right and wrong.

That was the first time I can remember, listening to someone with whom I disagreed strongly, and being convinced to change my mind through simple logic and reason. Once you realize that can happen, you listen to people a lot more and question everything.
 
Have any of you gone through this situation with a loved one?
 
Have any of you gone through this situation with a loved one?

i haven't and neither have you. it's illegal in canada, so your question is moot. only robert latimer and sue rodriguez's family would have this lived experience.

as for having someone on life support and a very real chance that i would have to decide to turn off that machine and they would die. . .yes, i have lived that. because of that experience, my wife and i have very clear instructions in our living wills. . .
 
We need to keep religion out of all intelligent conversations. That whole idea is an oxymoron.

All he did was supply the means. In the end THEY had to press the button, he didn't do it for them.

Whether you religious nuts out there want this to happen or not, reason shall prevail.
 
Have any of you gone through this situation with a loved one?

I have had a loved one choose to end treatment to face terrible suffering for a short period rather than continue suffering daily with no hope of reprieve. Die relatively slowly in pain or die a little quicker in extreme pain, which would you choose, what about a third option of dying with out having to suffer? you would do it for your dog, why not some one else?
 
In other news, 100,000’s of people die every year from smoking, car accidents and obesity.
 
i haven't and neither have you. it's illegal in canada, so your question is moot. only robert latimer and sue rodriguez's family would have this lived experience.

as for having someone on life support and a very real chance that i would have to decide to turn off that machine and they would die. . .yes, i have lived that. because of that experience, my wife and i have very clear instructions in our living wills. . .

Got to make one of those. Good thing is with my religion I wouldn't have to worry too much about my family holding on. It's against our religion to be on life support.
 
I have had a loved one choose to end treatment to face terrible suffering for a short period rather than continue suffering daily with no hope of reprieve. Die relatively slowly in pain or die a little quicker in extreme pain, which would you choose, what about a third option of dying with out having to suffer? you would do it for your dog, why not some one else?


I was thinking the same thing...we treat our animals better than we treat ourselves.
 

Back
Top Bottom