Slashdot Mirror
Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83
theodp writes "Jack Kevorkian, the pathologist said to have had a role in more than 130 assisted suicides, has died from kidney-related complications on the eve of the 21st anniversary of his first assisted suicide. Kevorkian, who served more than eight years in prison for second-degree murder, had his story told in the HBO movie You Don't Know Jack. His antics and personality brought a certain approachability to a grim subject — the fundamental right of terminally ill patients to choose to die. 'I will debate so-called ethicists,' he once said. 'They are not even ethicists. They are propagandists. I will argue with them if they will allow themselves to be strapped to a wheelchair for 72 hours so they can't move, and they are catheterized and they are placed on the toilet and fed and bathed. Then they can sit in a chair and debate with me.' RIP, Dr. Jack."
The cruel irony about this debate is that people who want to (or need to) die are sentenced to an indeterminate amount of suffering before they actually die and people convicted to death have their lives taken for a crime they should spend the rest of their natural lives contemplating in a steel and concrete cell.
The way the most despised are treated says a lot about a society, but the way a society treats it's least despised says a lot more.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Even if he was terminally ill, why should he be expected to end his life? Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?
Captcha: altruism
He wasn't rendered helpless by his illness -- until his last visit to the hospital shortly before his death. And if this bout of illness would be staved off, he'd have a few more years of mostly fully able life. Most of us have some illness a good part of their lives -- be that bad blood pressure, diabetes, allergy or whatever else. He did succumb to his kidney problems, but was more able at the age of 83 than most of you will be.
On the other hand, those who are rendered helpless -- trapped in a body that no longer works -- do suffer for no good reason. When you can't move on your own, have to fed and have your poo cleaned by others, and most importantly, have no hope of it ever getting better -- you're effectively in the most cruel jail.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
"God Bless You Doctor Kevorkian" is a reference to Kurt Vonnegut's book of the same title. In that book Vonnegut, an atheist, explains how at a meeting of the American Humanist Society, after Isaac Asimov's death, he started a speech there with "Isaac Asimov is in heaven now, God rest is soul." which got a huge laugh from the assembly of atheists.
So it's not an actual religious statement, but a semi-farcical one, acknowledging that we atheists do seem to be at a loss for words when it comes to comforting and consoling people over the recently departed. I try to focus on what a miracle it was that we get to experience the wonder of existence at all--statistically speaking. But I was at a complete loss for words when my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway. What can an spiritual naturalist say to someone when confronted with that? Religion has it easy, they just say the child is in a better place. I don't know what we have... and until we have something, religion wins.
Kevorkian led a long life in service of a greater good. What do you propose we as empiricists, spiritual naturalists, rationalists (call us anything other than the unscientific word "atheist" that defines us in a religious context) say to honor the dead and comfort the living? I'm genuinely curious.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
On the other hand, those who are rendered helpless -- trapped in a body that no longer works -- do suffer for no good reason. When you can't move on your own, have to fed and have your poo cleaned by others, and most importantly, have no hope of it ever getting better -- you're effectively in the most cruel jail.
Certainly I do not want to be put in this awful position. However, my concern is that if doctor assisted suicide is legalized, the insurance companies will be significantly less motivated to treat seriously ill patients who choose to live. And eventually, even before they get to this stage.
(We already have "quality of life" decisions being made before treatment options are presented to patients. Those who are perceived to have "too low a quality of life" are only offered palliative treatments.)
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
Personally, I doubt the motivation of health insurance companies would at all be driven by the ability of patients to kill themselves (which to some extent is an option many already have). At some point insurance companies stop paying for heroic measures anyway, and I doubt that the legal availability would impact that.
Now, the consumer demand for insurance that covers more desperate treatments might very well drop if euthanasia becomes more socially acceptable, and that might impact what insurance companies are willing to cover. That is a bit more indirect than what you are suggesting.
Most people don't realize it, but EVERY insurance company puts a price on life - and that includes national healthcare systems as well. If a $100k procedure would extend your life of an 85 year old quadriplegic by one day no insurance system on this planet would pay the bill. If the same procedure was likely to give a 15 year old a normal healthy lifespan (vs death in a few weeks) chances are most insurance systems would pay it (even private insurance in the US). The basic algorithm looks at how a treatment extends your life and/or improves the quality of your life - the more it does both the more it is allowed to cost. In the end everybody puts a price on life - we just don't like to talk about it.
Did he promote euthenasia, or choice of euthenasia?
Both, and much more.....
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes. Everywhere else the issues are to make sure the correct controls are in place so that only the truly terminal, that truly desire to die, and are competent to make that decision are euthanasized.
Oregon has a very reasonable law controlling euthanasia in that state, and to the best of my knowledge it has not caused any medical insurance to be denied.
Anarchists never rule
A TL/DR summary of the above:
1) He suggests that when a patient is going to die, and nothing can be done to prevent it, then it makes sense to perform medical experiments on that patient, assuming that consent can first be obtained, and that the experimentation can be done without causing any additional hardship to that patient.
2) He suggests that the above could also apply to convicts about to be executed, again with consent and without introducing additional suffering.
3) He suggested that blood could be transfused from someone recently deceased directly into the body of someone in need of a transfusion. The practical application of this procedure would be on the battlefield.
4) He suggests that the idea of experimenting on consenting humans would be preferable to experimenting on non-consenting animals.
All of the above sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The questionable parts are at the end, where he expands on the concept of "planned death" to include some externally imposed deaths, and also suggests a market for human organs. Not much detail is provided for either, so I'll make no comment here.
The unreasonable part is that some moron can block my consent to such experiments. When did we redefine freedom as "what lawmakers decide".
Well as someone who lost his sister in 07 to a long and horribly drawn out illness, watching as she slowly but surely fell apart with nothing the doctors could do to even stop the pain (she had a rare degenerating nerve disorder) I appreciate the work that Mr Kevorkian did and the price he paid to bring the rights of the suffering to the national spotlight.
Despite our advances in medicine the are plenty of times where all medical interventions are useless and the pain simply can NOT be in any way controlled. While my sister wouldn't have taken the option no matter how much she suffered (she wanted to live long enough to see her oldest start college, she unfortunately died 6 months before he began) the simple fact is as intelligent creatures it should be our right to choose whether we wish to endure the suffering or not.
The way I've always looked at it is this: if you would put an animal down rather than making it endure that kind of hellish suffering, then why in God's name would you make a human being go through that? By the end my sis's lungs were failing, she could no longer speak more than a word or two, couldn't eat or drink because her ability to swallow was failing, her nerves were lit up like pins and needles, and just the act of turning her could easily break bones. Why would anyone force someone to live through that? They should have the choice as intelligent beings to decide if that is how they want to be or not. To have it any other way is simple cruelty.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The unreasonable part is that some moron can block my consent to such experiments. When did we redefine freedom as "what lawmakers decide".
I think there is overlap with the ethics of selling human organs:
Organ sales: Compromising ethics
The Hidden Cost of Organ Sale
I assume you see nothing wrong with this, nobody in need of help? Three men charged in 'dungeon' castration
Laws establish limits, its been that way since before recorded history.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell