Kevorkian Musings

Jack Kevorkian, whom the media nicknamed “Dr. Death,” was released from prison on June 1st, 2007.  Kevorkian’s release has once again brought the issue of assisted suicide into the national spotlight.

Assisted suicide, the term which the media prefers to utilize rather than euthanasia, because of its galvanizing effect, is a touchy subject for many individuals.  Even so, many individuals who consider euthanasia as wrong, should consider the following, and note that the scenario which I will soon relate is actually no different than the assistance Kevorkian gave to terminal individuals who desired to end their lives.

My father has non-functioning kidneys, and has suffered from this for the past ten years.  Due to this condition, my father has to dialyze every other day in order to maintain his life.

This is a definite burden on my father, and my mother, even though my father has the ability to perform this medical procedure in the comfort of his home.  But, if my father did not dialyze every other day, he would die.

So, here is what individuals should consider when contemplating euthanasia.  My father can, at any time, choose to NOT dialyze.  If he makes this choice to not dialyze, the toxins which accumulate in his body due to his failed kidneys, will kill him.  And my father CAN, and may, make this choice at some point in the future, and he will die.  It may take up to two weeks for my father to die, if he makes the choice to end his dialysis, and it could very well be rather an unpleasant way to die.

If my father does make the choice to end his dialysis regime, is it any different than individuals like Jack Kevorkian performing euthanasia for individuals who may be terminal patients?  And, if the state legislates that individuals may not, because of the “law,” perform euthanasia, is the state also going to legislate than individuals such as my father MUST dialyze every other day of their lives, that they may not freely choose to NOT dialyze and thus end their lives?  Is the state going to coercively force my father to dialyze every other day so that he will live?  Not on my watch.

Kevorkian Released After 8 Years

UPDATE: Dr. David Yeagley posts on this subject in a piece titled Death by Choice: The Kevorkian Quandary. Also, Kyle Markley has a few words to say in a post titled Self-Ownership.

Posted by on 06/03 at 06:12 AM

  1. “If my father does make the choice to end his dialysis regime, is it any different than individuals like Jack Kevorkian performing euthanasia for individuals who may be terminal patients?”

    Wouldn’t it be different in the fact that Dad, if he did discontinue dialysis, would be doing it of his own free will and without the outside assistance of another individual?  True he would have the support of his family, (Though there may even be those selfish enough to force him to stay on dialysis by court order though hopefully no one within the family) if it came down to it.  To me, at least, therein lies an important difference. 

    I think I would be correct in stating that suicide, in and of itself, is not illegal.  If a person wants to kill themselves that is their choice, so be it. But when one brings in an outside source to kill them, like Kevorkian, then, though the individual wants to die apparently they lack the will to die of their own accord and it ceases to really be suicide by definition.

    Now, that being said, I believe that Kevorkians very public involvement created an outcry to the practice, usually carried out by the family physician, in private, of what has been termed assisted suicide.  Therin lies the key to it all for in the end it is a private matter...call it doctor/patient priviledge, whatever...and no government or group of individuals should have the right to interfere.

    Posted by WIzard  on  06/04  at  11:51 AM

  2. Wizard,

    But when one brings in an outside source to kill them, like Kevorkian, then, though the individual wants to die apparently they lack the will to die of their own accord and it ceases to really be suicide by definition.

    I do not think that the individual lacks the will to die if they bring in an outside source.  I think the source is brought in due to a lack of dignified means to die, i.e. their choices of a dignified death are in all probability limited.

    Do they shoot themselves, hang themselves, gas themselves in the garage, hoard a supply of pain meds, or what have you.

    Therin lies the key to it all for in the end it is a private matter...call it doctor/patient priviledge, whatever...and no government or group of individuals should have the right to interfere.

    You’re right about the above, Wizard, unfortunately the state in most instances will interfere.  If not before the fact, then after the fact.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/04  at  01:20 PM

  3. I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    Your father’s decision to stop dialysis is the same as someone deciding to kill themselves. 

    Co-opting another person to do it is murder, or at least conspiracy. 

    What if your father asked the dialysis machine repairman to break the machine because he’s in pain.  Is the repairman innocent?

    Posted by Nick  on  06/06  at  02:36 PM

  4. Nick,

    What if your father asked the dialysis machine repairman to break the machine because he’s in pain.  Is the repairman innocent?

    If my father was so incapcitated by pain, and a functioning dialysis machine was still being hooked up to him on an every other day basis, by either a “benign” caregiver, or force (court order), and he desired the machine to be broken, I would break it.  Does that make me guilty?

    I think the sanctity of life is, without question, of utmost importance.  But I also think that an individual who knows their life is ebbing away, and is suffering during this time, should have the ability to choose to end their time on earth with the assistance of another.  Many terminal individuals may not have access to the necessary accountrements which could assist them in their quest to end life in a peaceful, painless way on their own.  Shouldn’t these individuals have the ability to reach out to someone who does?

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/07  at  05:22 AM

  5. If my father was so incapcitated by pain, and a functioning dialysis machine was still being hooked up to him on an every other day basis, by either a “benign” caregiver, or force (court order), and he desired the machine to be broken, I would break it.  Does that make me guilty

    Yes.  Under the law, you would be guilty.  Are you morally right?  Maybe.

    Posted by Nick  on  06/07  at  07:39 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Socialist Pig

Previous entry: Computer Issues

<< Back to main