Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
kevorkian free
alerum
Member Posts: 407
LANSING, Mich. (AP) - For nearly a decade, Dr. Jack Kevorkian waged a defiant campaign to help other people kill themselves.
The retired pathologist left bodies at hospital emergency rooms and motels and videotaped a death that was broadcast on CBS'"60 Minutes." His actions prompted battles over assisted suicide in many states.
But as he prepares to leave prison June 1 after serving more than eight years of a 10- to 25-year sentence in the death of a Michigan man, Kevorkian will find that there's still only one state that has a law allowing physician-assisted suicide - Oregon.
Experts say that's because abortion opponents, Catholic leaders, advocates for the disabled and often doctors have fought the efforts of other states to follow the lead of Oregon, where the law took effect in late 1997.
Opponents defeated a measure in Vermont this year and are fighting similar efforts in California. Bills have failed in recent years in Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington state, and ballot measures were defeated earlier by voters in Washington, California, Michigan and Maine.
Kevorkian's release could spur another round of efforts, if only to prevent anyone else from following his example.
"One of the driving forces of the (Oregon) law was to prevent the Jack Kevorkians from happening," said Kate Davenport, a communications specialist at the Death with Dignity National Center in Portland, Ore., which defended Oregon's law against challenges.
"It wasn't well regulated or sane," she said. "There were just too many potential pitfalls."
Kevorkian, 79, was criticized even by assisted suicide supporters because of his unconventional practices.
He used a machine he'd invented to administer fatal drugs and dropped off bodies at hospital emergency rooms or coroner's offices, or left them to be discovered in the motel rooms where he often met those who wanted his help.
At the time, some doctors didn't want to give dying patients too much pain medication, fearing they'd be accused of hastening death.
Oregon law allows only terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer the medication to ask a physician to prescribe life-ending drugs, and they must make that request once in writing and twice orally.
Oregon's experience shows that only a tiny percentage of people will ever choose to quicken their death, said Sidney Wanzer, a retired Massachusetts doctor who has been a leader in the right-to-die movement.
From the time the law took effect in 1997 until the end of last year, 292 people asked their doctors to prescribe the drugs they would need to end their lives, an average of just over 30 a year. Most of the 46 people who used the process last year had cancer, and their median age was 74, according to a state report.
Experts say the attention on assisted suicide has helped raise awareness caring for the terminally ill.
"End-of-life care has increased dramatically" in Oregon with more hospice referrals and better pain management, says Valerie Vollmar, a professor at Oregon's Willamette University College of Law who writes extensively on physician-assisted death.
Opponents and supporters of physician-assisted death say more needs to be done to offer hospice care and pain treatment for those who are dying and suffering from debilitating pain.
"The solution here is not to kill people who are getting inadequate pain management, but to remove barriers to adequate pain management," said Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes assisted suicide.
"We need to come up with better solutions to human suffering and human need," Balch said.
More end-of-life care is needed, but doctors should have a right to assist those who ask for their help in dying, Wanzer said.
"There are a handful of patients who have the best of care, everything has been done right, but they still suffer. And it's this person I think should have the right to say, 'This is not working and I want to die sooner,'" Wanzer said.
Kevorkian has promised he'll never again advise or counsel anyone about assisted suicide once he's out of prison. But his attorney, Mayer Morganroth, said Kevorkian isn't going to stop pushing for more laws allowing it.
The state wants to go after money that Kevorkian makes following his release to help cover the cost of his incarceration. Morganroth has said his client has been offered as much as $100,000 to speak. Many of those speeches are expected to be on assisted suicide.
"It's got to be legalized," Kevorkian said in a phone interview from prison aired by a Detroit TV station on Monday. "I'll work to have it legalized. But I won't break any laws doing it."
Comments
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
They aren't even close to being the same thing. You're talking about killing adults who would otherwise live in a state of semi consciousness, unable to communicate with the outside world, and saying that it's the same thing as killing a child that for all you know could have a very happy and healthy life.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
They aren't even close to being the same thing. You're talking about killing adults who would otherwise live in a state of semi consciousness, unable to communicate with the outside world, and saying that it's the same thing as killing a child that for all you know could have a very happy and healthy life.
agreed there is a big differance in takeing a childs life when they have no say in the matter and a full grown consenting adult who has decided that the pain is just too much to live with.
This wins moronic post of my week award. So blatantly wrong on so many levels, yet so brief. It's like a haiku of stupidity. I must conclude you are an IRC bot that somehow got lost, not a native English writer, 12, or mentally handicapped.
Kudos. I could not have done better had I tried.
...Pika
This wins moronic post of my week award. So blatantly wrong on so many levels, yet so brief. It's like a haiku of stupidity. I must conclude you are an IRC bot that somehow got lost, not a native English writer, 12, or mentally handicapped.
Kudos. I could not have done better had I tried.
This wins moronic post of my week award. So insipidly shallow on so many levels, yet so brief. It's like a haiku of bigotry. I must conclude that you are indeed a rabbit with a pancake on it's head.
Kudos, but I could have done better.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
This wins moronic post of my week award. So blatantly wrong on so many levels, yet so brief. It's like a haiku of stupidity. I must conclude you are an IRC bot that somehow got lost, not a native English writer, 12, or mentally handicapped.
Kudos. I could not have done better had I tried.
This wins moronic post of my week award. So insipidly shallow on so many levels, yet so brief. It's like a haiku of bigotry. I must conclude that you are indeed a rabbit with a pancake on it's head.
Kudos, but I could have done better.
Wow, I guess you showed me. Better be careful with that razor sharp wit there buddy, might hurt yourself. Other people I think are safe though.
...Pika
Wow, I guess you showed me. Better be careful with that razor sharp wit there buddy, might hurt yourself. Other people I think are safe though.Other people you say? I suppose that only the animals are at risk.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Now I think you're just trying to confuse me, or at the very least spread your own confusion around. I'll spare you the effort; I confuse easily. So let's start on that common ground, that we both are confused, and try to work our way out. Ill go first:
Point: Euthanasia is a touchy subject because people die. Theres a whole right to quality of life issue behind it, but lets not try to run before we can find our toes.
Point: Euthanasia does not refer to teen-agers in China. I'm trying to be specific here, because apparently you think it is on the same ethical par as abortion. It's not. Abortion is not a 'right' for the fetus. Euthanasia is a conscious choice committed by a consenting adult. Both of them are heady issues, sure. But to compare the two, on any but the most superficial of levels, is simply not smart.
Point: The word 'bigotry' does not mean what you think it means.
Point: Simply rephrasing someone's post is pretty weaksauce. We all get pwned at times. The Way of Least Shame is to simply bow your head and move on.
Point: Think before you type. Its not a race. Not every post need be responded to. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
...Pika
Now I think you're just trying to confuse me, or at the very least spread your own confusion around. I'll spare you the effort; I confuse easily. So let's start on that common ground, that we both are confused, and try to work our way out. I’ll go first:
False. I am not confused in the least. I assumed you were some sort of bigoted, pro-life neander..bunny... Wait, let me erase that from my list of assumptions.
Point: Euthanasia does not refer to teen-agers in China. I'm trying to be specific here, because apparently you think it is on the same ethical par as abortion. It's not. Abortion is not a 'right' for the fetus. Euthanasia is a conscious choice committed by a consenting adult. Both of them are heady issues, sure. But to compare the two, on any but the most superficial of levels, is simply not smart.
There was an upperbound analysis that you so obviously missed: He was pointing out that the discussion of abortion is widespread and involves the life of two living things, while euthanasia is a touchier subject and only involves the life of a single human being. You know?
Here is a gross simplification: 4 is so widely discussed; why are you afraid of 2?
He was replying to a posted that was afraid to voice her opinion, because it is a "touchy" subject.
As for the moral aspect (his opinion that it is a personal right): I don't care. That is a subjective debate with no wrong/right answer, so that the label stupid must obviously stem from bigotry.
Point: The word 'bigotry' does not mean what you think it means.
Actually.. it does:
Bigot
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (the rest does not pertain to you, since it has nothing to do with ethnicity/race.. the rest being that MOST of the time it is used for people that have an intolerance for racial/ethnic groups, although the context should have made it clear that I had meant the pure definition)
Bigotry
Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation:
'bi-g&-trEFunction: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Point: Think before you type. It’s not a race. Not every post need be responded to. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
The point I was making is that your post was even more insipid, since it was just a forum flame without refutation. Your response could be used for anything you disagree with; it did not offer any elucidation or insight into the issue.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
[quote]Originally posted by //\//\oo
You sure do have a lot of exuses for why you made a stupid post, and then followed up with even more moronic bon mots. Apparently I'm just not smart enough to figure out your crazy squirrel logic.
I'll grant you, I'm a bigot. I'm a bigot against people who say something infantile without thinking, like you did, then dance twelve ways to Sunday explaining how I simply didn't understand what they meant. If you aren't eloquent or capable enough to clearly explain your ideas, then please save me some time and just use pictures.
As we're using words out of context (since you haven't even remotely proved that I am "intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" and just "assumed I was a pro lifer") I am labeling you a Bachman's Warbler.
Finally, are you conceding admission on the other points I made since you didn't address them? Or did you just collapse in a frothing frenzy before you had the time to answer?
The hour is late, Bachman's Warbler. This bigot must now retire. I eagerly await the morning though, and the colored text and nonsense responses from you it heralds.
...Pika
Those excuses are elucidations that I should not have had to make. So where are your counterarguments? You don't have any, because you can't argue.
That has been my whole point: You can't argue intelligibly. You're so conceited that you think that your mere disapproval is worth a tautology. A tautology is a statement that is logically true in every interpretation (in case you've never heard of it).
I'm sure that your PhD in BS must be a worth a solid 7 figure Yen salary: Please forgive me, Mr. Internet Bigshot.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You haven't given me anything to argue. Your entire 'argument' has been flawed from the beginning. Let's return to our roots:
You're comparing euthanasia and abortion, saying they are both personal rights. How are you justifying your comparison?
1) Abortion is not illegal, Euthanasia is (except in Oregon). So you can't mean that.
2) Abortion involves two people, Euthanasia one.
3) Abortion is enacted at the beginning of life, Euthanasia at the end.
You also question why Euthanasia is a touchy topic, apparently oblivious to the debate surrounding it that's been going on for decades.
It was an idiotic post. And while I'm sure you impress your friends and relatives with your ability to go to thesarus.com, no three syllable word is going to make your case, especially if you don't know the meaning of it. You remind me of that janitor on the Wayan Bros. who says things like 'I need to elucidate my education for posterity'.
I'm glad you think I'm an Internet Bigshot, it makes me feel special. In truth I'm just a guy who was dumbstruck by your complete cluelessness.
...Pika
You're comparing euthanasia and abortion, saying they are both personal rights. How are you justifying your comparison?
That's not my quote. I think he considers euthanasia and abortion to be equivalent, since they both involve restrictions on choices that an individual can make about his/her body. Some people consider that an inalienable right. I do to a degree, but I don't personally consider them to be the same right; if the child will be born without defect and has already been formed, then I don't think that pregnant individual has the right to terminate the pregnancy.
1) Abortion is not illegal, Euthanasia is (except in Oregon). So you can't mean that.
I don't think he meant it in a legal context.
2) Abortion involves two people, Euthanasia one.
Not really. It depends on how much of the baby has formed already: What if it were known that the baby would be born without a head? Could it really be given the same rights as the sentient human being carrying it? Since there are so many different cases, it does not always boil down to abortion involving more people than euthanasia.
In the case where the pregnancy is in the 3rd trimester and the child is not known to have any severe defects, then I do not necessarily think that the individual has the right to kill the child.
3) Abortion is enacted at the beginning of life, Euthanasia at the end.
That is completely inane. What if it were known that baby could not survive, or if it's deformities were so severe that it would never be able to subsist without life support?
You also question why Euthanasia is a touchy topic, apparently oblivious to the debate surrounding it that's been going on for decades.
I did not question. The original poster whose name I am too lazy to look up questioned why euthanasia was so touchy to the poster that replied. You took it out of context, because you're bigoted and quarrelsome.
It was an idiotic post. And while I'm sure you impress your friends and relatives with your ability to go to thesarus.com, no three syllable word is going to make your case, especially if you don't know the meaning of it. You remind me of that janitor on the Wayan Bros. who says things like 'I need to elucidate my education for posterity'.
Do you want people to use monosyllabic words, because your ego is at stake all of the time? Do I need to include intentional spelling errors to make you feel better about your forum-peen? It sure sounds like it. Perhaps you need to develop a better self-image of yourself to get rid of that nasty inferiority complex.
I'm glad you think I'm an Internet Bigshot, it makes me feel special. In truth I'm just a guy who was dumbstruck by your complete cluelessness.
You're the clueless one here: It's not even my quote that I'm defending; I just can't stand unjustified arrogance.
If he had actually posted something stupid, then I would not have replied in the first place, but he merely posted a view that you happen to disagree with.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.