Agnostic.com

40 8

Just thought I'd throw this out there in case I can educate some of you and hopefully clear up some misconceptions you might have about assisted suicide. I was the first person to put Dr. Jack Kevorkian in jail in Michigan and I worked on his assisted suicide cases for about a year and a half and would consider myself an expert on the subject. For many it's a very emotional topic and logic and reason tend to be ignored. Just briefly I can tell you that once we decide that there is quality of life not worth living we tend toward nazism. The handicapped community was up in arms about passing such laws as people would ask them, "you're a quadriplegic why do you want to live?" Let me also say that I'm a strong believer in the right to die. I didn't ask to be here and I should be able to leave whenever I want...I just can't have help doing it. There is no way to regulate it. I'm happy to take questions, concerns, jabs etc. it won't be anything I haven't heard before. But if you're curious, had I ever tried Kevorkian, you would have heard about his paintings, one of which shows Santa Claus coming down the chimney stomping on an infant. (google it) He was a pathologist just obsessed with death.

lerlo 8 Jan 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

40 comments (26 - 40)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

@lerlo. But, you were the only attorney, that I found in this entire posting! You also, misinterpreted my 'lawyer' statement! I said, 'we need a clever lawyer'...I never indicated anywhere in my responces that I didn't LIKE lawyers...I don't even know any!! (This is an assumption). I would say, that we are the PUBLIC. You would normally be representing the society at large, wouldn't you? Because, you had more facts about the 'justice system' than others on this forum, you dismissed most of the input from it! It seems to me like...you presented your 'book learning,' as more important than a desire to maintain our 'social order!' AND, you know what!! ...my opinion is as valid as the next person's! Here alone, is a 'lack of wisdom' on your part...not everyone's ideas has 'value' in your 'big picture!' Sir, I am a very serious person and mostly 'self-educated'...and on one of your responces, you stated, that 'some of you, just want to talk'(another assumption)...(even the ignorant have ideas)...that was an insult, any way you slice it! You may not have learned much here (I am still kinda of wondering why you are on this forum), because, I have not found another person so far (and you can read what I post), on this forum that treats LIFE like a 'text book'...I mean without...all of what HUMANITY is made up of! HOWEVER, my concern is...justice is at risk, when any person in authority...is the driving force with his NARROW life view... as fair and balanced with the fate of another human being in his hands! I believe the present state of our current social order, stands as an example of MAJOR disarray! If you gained nothing from YOUR own post...I bet, a lot of the rest of us did as this would not be a subject matter, that shallow minded people would tackle!

0

@lerlo. But, you were the only attorney, that I found in this entire posting! You also, misinterpreted my 'lawyer' statement! I said, 'we need a clever lawyer'...I never indicated anywhere in my responces that I didn't LIKE lawyers...I don't even know any!! (This is an assumption). I would say, that we are the PUBLIC. You would normally be representing the society at large, wouldn't you? Because, you had more facts about the 'justice system' than others on this forum, you dismissed most of the input from it! It seems to me like...you presented your 'book learning,' as more important than a desire to maintain our 'social order!' AND, you know what!! ...my opinion is as valid as the next person's! Here alone, is a 'lack of wisdom' on your part...not everyone's ideas has 'value' in your 'big picture!' Sir, I am a very serious person and mostly 'self-educated'...and on one of your responces, you stated, that 'some of you, just want to talk'(another assumption)...(even the ignorant have ideas)...that was an insult, any way you slice it! You may not have learned much here (I am still kinda of wondering why you are on this forum), because, I have not found another person so far (and you can read what I post), on this forum that treats LIFE like a 'text book'...I mean without...all of what HUMANITY is made up of! HOWEVER, my concern is...justice is at risk, when any person in authority...is the driving force with his NARROW life view... as fair and balanced with the fate of another human being in his hands! I believe the present state of our current social order, stands as an example of MAJOR disarray! If you gained nothing from YOUR own post...I bet, a lot of the rest of us did as this would not be a subject matter, that shallow minded people would tackle!

0

@lerlo, I want to sincerely thank you for your post. I must admit that at the beginning, I was a bit mystified as to why you posted your Kevorkian case...as example to teach us something about sucuide. But after reading ALL the posts...I came to the realization of WHY our justice system is not fair and just. Without, your honest and candid responses, this would not have revealed itself. You have expert skills in where/how to find the law that covers the unlawful charge. It appears you are skilled in applying 'that law' (as with Kevorkian). However, you became an untrained expert on your 'subject', even down to analyzing certain drawings by Kevorkian and his behavior towards a patient's time of death and guessing on people's motives (I.e. woman who was 'tired of caring for her husband'😉. But, in all your responces...you lacked WISDOM about 'sucuide,' much less on 'death and dying.' Where was your life experiences? Even when prompted...you recited 'codes' and 'laws' and 'regulations!' What kind of a world would we have, if everyone lived their life in a bubble like that? If you noticed it was pointed out, that your position was '10 against...to 01!' So NOW, I understand why district attorneys want concede even when more evidence is brought to light and sometimes even when 'scientific' DNA is presented! You developed great skills to read and apply the 'rule of law,' when people break the law. But somewhere you must have blocked out what it takes to obtain wisdom! Because, I never found a thing that was WISE, in your post! I believe this is the reason you received so much flack! If this sounds like I am 'beating up' on you, I AM NOT! You inadvertently helped me to understand why people must have clever lawyers and luck to get "real justice' in our present system!
Just like 'book' learning is never enough...a DA without wisdom, but great 'law knowledge' will give us 'the luck of the draw' in our justice system! If this sounds harsh...it is! Even so, I still feel grateful to you for this revelation!

For the record, just because you may have counted some 10-1 against me (first of all I stated an opinion about the law because that's what we're talking about "assisted suicide laws" and whether they should exist) since 46 or so states still find it illegal I'd say that apparently there are more people against it. What I have learned form the post is that there are contrarians all over the place. Since last I checked it's still a free country to voice my opinion and a year and a half's worth or research on the subject I will continue to share my opinion despite the fact that some people here might not like it. I stated up front that it was an emotional issue and like most emotional issues, people like to ignore things like laws and facts because it interferes with their emotions. Whatever lets you sleep at night. If you think you're the first person not to like lawyers, you're mistaken. It's funny that the people that don't like them certainly change their mind when they need one. Either way, you're certainly free to disagree with, complain about or take solace from my post. It's nice that each person can have their own definition of wisdom--apparently only people with wisdom understand that the right to assisted suicide is innate.

0

@Lerlo...as a witness to so many unfortunate and horrible things over the span of 78 years, I have learned that it is not the criminal that creates the most harm in the world. It is from the ignorance of otherwise good people that can and does cause much harm! I myself, have been one of those people! But, I never give up on making adjustments...even here in old age!

I guess you want me to tell you that somewhere you have a right to assisted suicide...I don't think it's a good idea as I've explained and sure some states have legalized it. You want it--go to that state and I hope you meet their qualifications. While you're at it, try pushing for a law that says you have a right to assisted life and that someone must give you food and shelter. See how that goes over.

0

@lwelo, I have not thought of Kevorkian in years! I learned what I could from that situation and moved on. You did not share what YOU had learned 'OUT' of that experience. From your writings...you seem to be re-litgating the Kevorkian case. I am at a disavantage here without research and only some pretty clear memories. I do know without research, that 'life and death' issues have been taking place every day, month and year, since the 'Kevorkian case.' Using just one example to prove your point, seems shortsighted to me. I also, sense a 'put down'..."Thanks for the psychoanalysis," which helps prove my point...your "world view" seems pretty much, 'black and white!' Good luck with that!

0

@lerlo, it appears to me that you operate in a 'black and white' manner. You have no grays in your concepts! And, you make more assumptions than I am conformable with! What you might do, and what another person might do, under the same circumstances just might be altogether different! I have never met two people who behaved the same way about hardly anything. That being said, I am also wondering why this issue with Kevorkian is coming up for you so many years later? And, it would seem by your writings that you would handle the Kevorkian issue the same way that you did, back in the day. Yes...YOU know the law...or laws! But, it has been my experience that as my life has progressed over 50 of my last 78 years...that as i took in more information, it altered my ideas to the point, that my position today no where even resembles how I once understood certain issues...not even 25 years ago. I also may be 'a law abiding citizen' but I would not hesitate to break a law if it made no sense, for a particular moment! I don't make my own laws...neither will I follow 'laws' in blind faith...and I will take responsibility for my actions! I might hold myself to a higher moral code than the average person. I appreciate your responces, but there is still a question in my mind, why you bring YOUR Kevorkian issue up after so many years? Because, I have learned to move on from any past experience, asap...(I wonder if I could bring up something from just 5 yrs ago!) Each one of us must settle in our own mind, the life and death issue! And, I would never impose what I might do on any other person! I believe you can do the same at this moment in time. If we all become slaves, I guess that will change!

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. I raised the issue because it's still a relevant issue today and I thought I would bring the topic up and perhaps present some ideas that no one thinks about because it seems to be purely an emotional issue for most people.

0

#lerlo, You seem stuck on 'The Law.' How is it that every "against the law,' situation, has some way around it? The 'right' attorney is needed and the 'luck of the draw,' for jury duty! Sir, you may have lots of facts, but it appears you could have a 'blind spot?' You reported that a man's mask was removed, to calm the man down...but you did not report that the man HIMSELF said 'stop' or 'proceed!' And, you added as if you were privy...'wife'...'she wanted him dead, because she was tired of taking care of him NO DOUBT(capital letters mone)!' Was, this a fact or assumption on your part? Sounds like mindreading to me! Maybe I am way out here in SOME field on this, but you tell your side as if you were there, 'like a fly on the wall,' reporting back to us! You make so many assumptions that it causes me to question your reasoning! With my type of personality, I would not allow my doctor to be consulted, if I decided to commit suicide. Who is he/she to block my free will? And, I might have already discussed it with my doctor...not to support me in dying...but support for me as a person!
...'pushing the medical profession to work on pain treatments,' ...'and not sentencing people to death'...shows a lack of knowledge on the nature of pain! 'They' developed pain treatments and we have thousands of people dying each day, from their pain treatment! Where have you been hiding out, all this time? And, let me add here, that this Country by law, has put people to death in...I believe every state in this country!! So is it 'putting people to death' that bothers you or are you on some kind of 'late life' campagn to 'justify' your position in the Kevorkian case? In my opinion, we should have the right to die when we choose. If a person should be in some delusional state, then, very attempt should be made to bring that person around. It is not the person that chooses to exit, that may be having the difficulty. It is the 'other' people who must face the loss and sadness (psychic pain and a challege to a person's belief system) that would take place around this 'life or death' event. I hope that you find the law, that puts this issue to rest...at least for you. I frankly struggled with your last statement...'violate the equal protection of all of our rights to die.' ???

Gee I don't know but I would hope that if someone was going to help me kill myself and they were a doctor supposed to preserve life that they may want to check into my medical problem before they just said, "sure, I;ll kill you." To find out whether all steps had been done to help me first. You obviously missed the part about Kevorkian violating his own rules about helping someone if they were struggling while he was helping them. Not to mention violating the law. If the law doesnt matter we don't need to be having the conversation because people can do whatever they want.

0

You started off with your original post with a, what seemed, somewhat genuine issue, but in all your responses have been either condescending, misleading or at the least, disingenuous. I will say, a conversation has ensued, so, for that, we owe you.

0

Since I know what it took to get to where you were when you charged Dr. Kevorkian, you were not unfamiliar with research. You imply regulations still lacked in overseeing assisted suicides. What did you find out about the places that had already legalized it? How did they deal with regulating it?

At the time it wasn't legal anywhere in the Western world. In the Netherlands where it wasn't legal but wasn't prosecuted, patients were wearing necklaces saying, "don't kill me" because 60% of patients were killed without consent. In Michigan at the time it was "legal" to the extent that you could treat someone's pain if the goal was to alleviate pain even though it might hasten death. So for instance giving someone with Lou Gehrig's disease morphine will ease their pain but it will suffocate them. A doctor could argue that they were merely treating pain. Kevorkian, after he lost his medical license, was using carbon monoxide gas which of course will end your pain after it kills you.

@lerlo Now that some Western countries have legalized assisted suicide, does any place have regulation you feel is acceptable?

0

As a follow up, let me give you my perspective on the law in the U.S as it stands and the problems I see with it. The U.S. Constitution says in the 10th Amendment that anything not included in it is left to the states. Now in the area of privacy the Supreme Court has, under the guise of the 14th Amendment found a right to privacy. There is no explicit right to die in the Constitution but it could easily fall under the 14th Amendment. As I stated I think we all have a right to die, terminally ill (we all are) or otherwise. There is NO right to assisted suicide in the U.S. Constitution since it includes another person and can't be considered privacy. Therefore it is left to the states. If a state wants to pass a law allowing assisted suicide they can--if you want one you go to that state.

The problem for me for instance let's take Oregon. To date I believe only 100 people have used the law. We don't create laws for 100 people. it's not a boutique kinda thing. Then only patients that are "terminally ill" with 6 months to live are allowed to use it assuming two psychiatrists and a court agree they are of sound mind.

  1. What if I just want to die because it's my right because life sucks or I just don't want to live anymore. What happened to equal protection of the laws? What about MY right to die? You don't think it's a bit arbitrary to say 5 months? They aren't in horrible pain in the 7th month? See the problem with setting such rules, limits? What about their mental condition? Is someone in horrible pain in their right mind? We have suicide hotlines because we think people that are suicidal need help. Should suicide hotlines be illegal?

  2. Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to preserve life--not end it. Allowing them to help people die is a violation of that oath which is why the AMA is against it. We should be encouraging the medical profession to deal with pain not take the easy way out and just kill people.

It's nice to use phrases like "death with dignity." There are all kinds of poisons out there that people can take without putting doctors in an ethical dilemma. I'm not sure taking an overdose or lethal amount of drug is dignity but just because it sounds so--doesn't make it so. Kevorkian used carbon monoxide gas. It is a difficult and, as I said originally, painful and emotional subject. Loved ones help people die all the time and juries use jury nullification to ignore the law and acquit them.

Once a law says that a court or a psychiatrist gets to make the decision it is no longer the right of the person to make the decision. This is why in my opinion legislation can't solve the problem. If everyone has the same right it needs to be for everyone. If you let someone help, you have to look at their motives for helping and whether they really had
informed consent. Of course I personally think society should be encouraging people to live. Although I know that many of you don't understand societal pressure once there is a limit or "quality of life" set by some law, as I said previously, the handicapped community was afraid that, as happened in nazi Germany where handicapped people were killed because of their quality of life, that there would be societal pressure placed on them if "quality of life" limtis, suggestions or ideals were set up.

If you think you have a right to assisted suicide if someone won;t help you can you sue them for violating your right if they won't help you? Or is it just something that would be nice to have? All of us have the right to commit suicide, you may not like how they have to do it, but the only way you know if someone really wants to die is if they do it themselves. Just my two cents, well maybe three. Hopefully it will bring up some issues that you may not have considered before.

lerlo Level 8 Jan 17, 2018
0

I'm always suspicious when someone insists so carefully & resolutely as to how much of an expert he/she is on a subject. It usually means a strong opinion is headed this way.

Pretty sure I didnt give a strong opinion and I worked on the issue for a year and a half and was even tasked with writing a law allowing it. I was have citations for my positions, you don't like the word expert, your choice. My guess is that I know a little bit more about it than the people calling me names and last I checked even experts are allowed to have strong opinions.

@lerlo In the first sentence of your response you say you don't think you have offered a strong opinion and in the final sentence you defend your right to be allowed to.

Neither are the point.

The essence of my complaint, here, is my own belief that a strong and reasonable argument does not require one to establish a premise of expertise prior to the expose. I'm sure you've heard this expressed as the "appeal to authority" method of logical fallacy. If your argument has merit, it will stand on its own despite your supposed expertise on the subject. Furthermore, an assertion of authority on a subject is usually an attempt to convince others of a special understanding one person possesses that ordinary people are not expected to possess. It insults the intelligence of the audience; hence some of the negative reactions here.

I react to the insult by calling you out on it. 🙂 Own up, and laugh it off?

In any case, it's a cheap way to make an argument and I'd be genuinely surprised if you didn't already know that.

0

A slippery slope is no reason not to climb a mountain.

Well I didnt say anything about a slippery slope but sure there is a reason because if you slide down it you might get hurt or worse...and maybe someone, who really doesn't want to die in the case of assisted suicide, dies

0

I don't think it should be illegal to take your own life. It's your life you should be able to make that decision

It's not illegal to take your own life. Suicide is legal. It's having someone help you that is illegal in most of the western world for a multitude or reasons.

0

Can you say for certain that Kevorkian was obsessed with death or was he attempting to shock 'the senses' into facing another reality? Each person has so many 'sides'...were you witness to all of Kevorkian's, traits? Sometimes, different personality traits, only show up in, out of the way settings. I say this, because it seems that different people perceive me differently and even then...differently, in different settings. And on close examination, I believe that I am not the same with all people. I never had a personal experience with Kevorkian, but i did follow him and his his ideas on assisted sucuide. But, I never believed that he was obsessed with death. From a distance, it appeared that he wanted to assist in releasing another human from his pain/misery. Could he have been more in 'tune' with the pain that some people find themselves in? There was a time that I experienced a 'living hell,' from physical and mental pain. And likely, others have had it much worse. Could his actions have come from the 'obsessed' notion of relieving pain? I have seen documenories, on assisted sucuide, (with Kevorkian, too) for patients with terminal illnesses, after their condition had progressed into unbearable pain. There are assisted suicides, covertly carried out, today, for this very reason. But, much exploring has taken place before making this decision, (which I recall with Kevorkian). It is a slippery slope, for sure! But, can you say for certain that Kevorkian was obsessed with death or pain?

As you say, you don't know all the facts. Kevorkian violated his own rules when it came to "assisting" people. He said that if anyone ever struggled when he had the mask on them that he would take the mask off and not help them anymore. But in one instance, the man was struggling. Kevorkian took the mask off, let the man calm down and the put the mask on and killed him. Because the guy's wife was there and she wanted him dead because she was tired of taking care of him no doubt. To me, a man who runs around the hospital checking to see if he can determine the exact time of death is obsessed with death. A man who dumps people in parking lots after they die and who doesnt talk to a person's doctor before "assisting" them in their death is not serving their needs but his own. Did he start a dialogue, perhaps. Did he break the law, yes. We should be pushing the medical profession to work on pain treatment not sentencing people to death. And what about the people who have the same right to die and are not terminally ill? Why can't they have help too? There is no 'right" to assisted suicide because then it involves other people's rights not to help you. I will post something on the state of our laws as I see them, which to me violate the equal protection of all of our rights to die.

When I had the case, the law in Michigan on assisted suicide at the time was that as long as you were trying to alleviate pain you could treat someone even if it hastened death. For instance giving a Lou Gehrig's patient morphine will ease their pain but it will suffocate them. When kevokian gave Thomas Hyde poison carbon monoxide gas he was trying to kill him, not alleviate pain.

0

"Johnny Got His Gun" is a novel written in 1938 by American novelist, and later blacklisted screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo. It was made into a movie with Timothy Bottoms playing the lead. Watch it or read the book and then talk about assisted suicide.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:15964
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.