BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Crime Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian dead at 83.

Article here.

Suicide, whether assisted or not, can be a very touchy topic for many people, so please keep this discussion civil.

I think Kevorkian definitely crossed the line when he administered the drugs himself. That act was completely outside the law (whereas his earlier assisted suicides were not specifically outlawed), and airing it on national TV wasn't the smartest move. I don't morally agree with suicide myself, but I can understand how a terminally ill person might consider it or even go through with it, especially if they were in a good deal of pain. To me, it's not my place to judge them for it.

On al lighter note, does Al Pacino really look that much like Kevorkian? I don't see it.

Once upon a time I would have passionately disagreed with suicide/assisted or not. Growing up Catholic it was ingrained a mortal sin and life, how could you want to end one?

There's something like don't judge me unless you've walked a mile in my shoes? Something like that. I've had the type of life where I could be in one situation today and next week be way over here, the next there, and have crossed paths with people who do want to end their lives, what they are feeling/seeing.

What I heard the most was they didn't want to be a burden. They were ill or incapable of producing anything benefitial financially, they have no family or have family that couldn't care less if they're alive or not and to them there just isn't a reason to go on. They aren't hurting anyone by leaving, they're just leaving.

So, for me I'm kind of in the middle. I can absolutely understand from speaking with these people, why they see no other alternative, but to be homeless with a terminal illness, no food, place to sleep, no friends or family, they are counting the days to get off this place.

But it can get to a point where people just want to end it because something didn't turn out the way they wanted or they're sad/tired of a messed up planet, getting no where, having to pretend things aren't how they feel, etc. but the problem with that is, there could have been a huge turn around, just around the corner. With so many twists of fate that could have happened if you had just given it that once more around.

Good points. We can never fully understand the circumstances of another's life.

I also think that sometimes people can mentally equate euthanasia with withholding of treatment and that makes it easier to accept. For example, someone with terminal cancer choosing to refuse treatment to ensure a greater quality of life left, even if it was shorter, is not at all unheard of. Definitely hard for the family, but probably easier than a suicide. I think the sticking point for most may be that refusal of treatment is a passive act, while suicide, assisted or otherwise, is a deliberate action. That can go against the core values of many religions, both for the patient's actions and those of the helper. But if you can accept both as a means of not prolonging suffering, it makes more sense.

Since Kevorkian managed to assist in 130 suicides, it makes me believe that if the procedure was legalized, that number would probably rise significantly. Legalization could bring about more acceptance of the act in society. Probably not much, much more, and definitely not among all groups, but some.

Very good article and subject matter, Donna. Assisted suicide is such a controversial issue and one I have often pondered over. I tend to think that Kevorkian had somewhere in his heart and spirit a reason to follow his chosen path. Could he be considered an Earth Angel by some? It is possible that he was.

I do believe that a person who has a terminal illness has the God-given right to decide their own time and place of death, especially if they are suffering so much. To choose the time, place, and who will be with them at the moment of death I think would be very comforting to the person who wishes to end not only their own suffering, but that of loved ones who see the suffering on a daily basis.

Thank you for bringing up this issue and for the well-written article.

May his next journey be as purposeful as this one was with fewer slings and arrows. Blessed journey Jack and thank you for those you helped.

Kevorkian's administration of poison to the patient is definitely under murder and not assisted suicide. I think he was just too radical, and considering that some of his "assistance" involved some kind of experimentation, edged towards unethical. Ironically, he died a natural death. I don't like his seemingly too eager attitude towards assisted suicide, but he made a rather interesting point that lawmakers should consider. I agree that it is not our place to judge how people choose to live or die, but it made me think that if I was terminally ill or paralyzed to the point of being unable to "live out my life" without being dependent on some machines and other people, then I might also want that some option will be available for me. Case in point is Tony Nicklinson's situation: after suffering from stroke, he ended up almost totally paralyzed that he can only move his head and eyes. He's not in pain, but he's suffering from the kind of life he's having and since he cannot kill himself, he's currently fighting for the right to die with the help of his wife without risking his wife the charge of murder. If a person is left in a condition that make him/her unable to live a happy and meaningful life, should other people and the law make way for that person to have the option to end it? Or is it really our duty to promote the choice of life over death no matter what? I'd love to hear some opinion about this.

Well said, Deb. I believe that we should be able to choose to die, if that is what we feel is best for us. That being said, I am afraid of the unintended consequences in our society.

Back in the 60's and 70's the drug culture was a bit like family or a rebellious group of folks throwing off the shackles of society's expectations. Now, look at it! We have a gangsta/drug culture. It has evolved to an industry controlled by crime lords, and children grow up doing drugs. I know many kids that think that it's ok to just sit around and do drugs. This is what they've seen. Smoking weed at a young age causes all kinds of cognitive problems, including difficulty forming memories. It makes it darned difficult to teach when they know it one day, and even with repetition and practice, the learning is gone the next day.

In my day to day life, I work with a lot of folks who have developmental differences or mental illness. I worry that the choice for assisted suicide will become the need for ridding society of these people that I care so deeply about.

This is as serious as I am going to be today!

Welcome to the forum, Thercee3! Thanks for joining in!

I agree that Kevorkian seemed very eager to promote his cause. It could be called being passionate, but his attitude in daring the police to come after him on the "60 minutes" interview smacks of arrogance as well. I think he rather enjoyed the fame, tbh.

I believe that the biggest barriers to assisted suicide becoming legal, aside from the long-standing taboos against suicide, are the definition of "terminally ill" and the "quality vs. quantity" debate. At what point should someone be considered "terminally ill" for legal purposes-at six weeks to live? Six months? And even then, those are only estimates-predicting remaining lifespan isn't an exact science.

Then, obviously, someone with advanced cancer is going to die before long anyway-Tony Nicklinson, OTOH, could live many more years, but with a horrendous quality of life. "Quality of life" is something that might be too intangible to legislate. You and I might think that Nicklinson's quality of life should permit assisted suicide, but others would argue that he is aware and that gives him quality of life (I think it only makes it worse that he's aware!)And as Connie mentions, it could open the door to allow mental illness and developmental delays to qualify, which is like saying those people are undesireable. A point I'd not thought of.

Finally, how much red tape would be involved in this? Iwonder how many patients would pass away during the process of getting their assisted suicide approved? You can't even get a passport in under four to six weeks!

Excellent points, everyone! This is a really good discussion.

Kind of like Atkins who died of a heart attack. Not funny but funny.

I think he brought attention to a serious issue that most people would rather not deal with and I admired him for this. He might be the world's most famous and loved killer. RIP Kervorkian!

What Jack did was bring the issue of right to die to the forefront. We have the technology so it is not difficult to know when a person is terminal or will permanently suffer a painful existence without hope of recovery.

I believe he got overzealous with attempting to make his point. I also believe that he wanted society to come to a meeting of the minds on the topic and believed it wasn't getting the serious focus it merited.

My thought on the subject always has been and will always remain - We have enough love and compassion to know to put a beloved family pet down when it is suffering even though it will not mitigate our own at the loss. Surely, loving family members who are able to articulate their wishes are entitled to the same respect and consideration.

Jack was very good about turning away people suffering from depression and focusing in on those that truly had no option left but how to pass from this journey onto the next.

It is because human life is valuable and because people should be heard and their choices respected that I admire Jack's contributions. It is very easy to cast stones when one is not actually faced with this dilemma. Right up to the point that you watch a loved one wither away, moaning, and praying to die each day for years. Indeed, they lived longer but wished each day that they had not. Not helping a loved one leaves a bigger stain on the spirit than grieving the loss.