This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
The disability rights community may be getting a bit under Jack Kevorkian's skin.
Also, contrary to his lawyer's many claims, Kevorkian apparently isn't near his death bed.He said his hepatitis isn't bothering him currently, but he worries that his liver disease could flare up at any time.
Pardon my cynicism, but is anyone surprised?
Labels: Kevorkian
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:13 PM
38 Comments
I am a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute and the author of 12 books, including A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy, which is relevant to the issues considered by this blog.
Subscribe to
Comments [Atom]
38 Comments:
"Crippled people."
What a delightful epithet!
The movement I associate with is the "Disability" movement not the "Crippled People" movement.
Disability can be anything- not just a physical handicap.
But then again, Kevorkian just sees these people and a wealth of organs he wants to dissect.
How can anyone doubt that Kevorkian is a misanthrope of the worst sort -- one who seems other human beings as mere fodder?
(How can anyone doubt that Kevorkian is a misanthrope of the worst sort -- one who seems other human beings as mere fodder?)
Hmmm... That reminds me of people like Wesley and the late Mother Teresa, who loved suffering, and believed that people have a 'duty to live' so that other people can use that as an incredibly selfish opportunity to 'look compassionate'. So much for respect for human dignity.
Kevorkian's motives are on display for any who care to pay attention; those of Wesley and Mother Theresa are, apparently, the product of a paranoid imagination. (Not to mention that that's a very bizarre sort of ad hominem attack. No training in logic?)
Duty to live? No. Just a duty on the part of healers never to kill. Kevorkian obviously never had much use for Hippocrates.
Mother Teresa didn't seek to "look compassionate." She eased suffering. Mother Teresa picked maggots out of people's faces. Picking on her is seriously low.
Some degree of suffering is part of the human condition- and how arrogant of you to assume that just because people suffer in a different way than you do that they don't have dignity.
The disabled protesting Kevorkian very much want to live, and are vulnerable to bigotted ideologies such as yours that say death is preferable to overcoming obstacles and triumph in the face of adversity.
(Kevorkian's motives are on display for any who care to pay attention; those of Wesley and Mother Theresa are, apparently, the product of a paranoid imagination. (Not to mention that that's a very bizarre sort of ad hominem attack. No training in logic?))
Mother Teresa said that the SUFFERING of the poor was beautiful. Hmmm. Sounds pretty damn sadistic to me. Here's more:
(In 1992 she intervened with a court in Los Angeles, which was about to sentence Charles Keating, the biggest fraud and embezzler in American history. His S & L racket stole a total of $252 million, mainly from small and poor depositors. A strong Catholic and right-wing campaigner against pornography in his spare time, Keating gave Mother Teresa $1,250,000 in cash and the use of a private jet, in return for which she gave him many useful endorsements, including a character reference to the court. The court had asked Mother Teresa to return Keating's donations, which may well have been stolen, but she never replied to the request.)
(What about her celebrated concern for the poor and the weak? Here the record is much murkier than her saintly image would suggest. I have been shown testimony from leading American and British physicians, expressing their concern at the extremely low standard of medicine practiced in her small Calcutta clinics. No pain killers, syringes washed in cold water, a fatalistic attitude toward death and a strict regimen for the patients. No public accounts were made available by her "missionaries of Charity" but enormous sums are known to have been raised. The income from such awards as the Nobel Prize is alone enough to maintain a sizable operation. In one on-the-record interview, Mother Teresa spoke with pride of having opened more than 500 convents in 125 countries, "not counting India." It seemed more than probable that money donated by well-wishers for the relief of suffering was being employed for the purpose of religious proselytizing by the "missionary multinational.")
http://www.salon.com/sept97/news/news3.html
(Earlier in the day, young international volunteers had giggled as one told how a young boy had peed on her while strapped to a bed. I had already been told of an older disturbed woman tied to a tree at another Missionaries of Charity home. At the orphanage, few of the volunteers batted an eyelid at disabled children being tied up. They were too intoxicated with the myth of Mother Teresa and drunk on their own philanthropy to see that such treatment of children was inhumane and degrading.)
http://macintyre.com/content/view/533/105/
(Duty to live? No. Just a duty on the part of healers never to kill. Kevorkian obviously never had much use for Hippocrates.)
The Hippocratic Oath, particularly its indictment to 'do no harm', is outdated.
Any treatment with a side effect is harmful. The important thing is to balance the harm with the benefits received, from the patient's point of view.
And don't forget that the Oath forbids surgery and abortion as well. It's just that most people don't know it.
And Wesley has said that we should not commit suicide so that others can be 'compassionate'.
(Some degree of suffering is part of the human condition- and how arrogant of you to assume that just because people suffer in a different way than you do that they don't have dignity.
The disabled protesting Kevorkian very much want to live, and are vulnerable to bigotted ideologies such as yours that say death is preferable to overcoming obstacles and triumph in the face of adversity.)
Dignity is a PERSONAL issue. Who are YOU to brainwash them into believing that life is ALWAYS dignified, no matter how painful or dull it is? Just because some of them want to live doesn't mean that ALL of them should be forced to.
"How can anyone doubt that Kevorkian is a misanthrope of the worst sort -- one who seems other human beings as mere fodder?"
Well, I do. From what I've seen, he only wants people to have the choice to live or not. I don't see what's misanthropic beyond that, unless we decide the choice it misanthropic.
But perhaps it is misanthropic to deny them that choice.
So you don't believe his own words? Wesley has pointed out that Kevorkian's motive was always what he called "obitiatry." He pretty much says so in a NY Times article from the other day:
"Mr. Kevorkian said he was never bothered by his Doctor Death nickname. 'They’re right in a way,' he said, pointing out that his focus, as a former pathologist, was always death and dying.
"'Everyone is going to die,' he said. 'Aren’t you interested in what’s going to happen?'"
A doctor who couldn't even be bothered to check whether those he was killing were even ill -- how can you take him seriously, even as an advocate for euthanasia? He wants people, any people at all, to be able to chose to die, so that he can use them in his freaky experiments. Period. He has no interest in anyone's dignity or well-being, or in anyone as a person at all. He has said so himself. Why doubt him?
"Let the crippled people demonstrate." The words of a true humanitarian, to be sure.
"He has no interest in anyone's dignity or well-being, or in anyone as a person at all. He has said so himself. Why doubt him?"
Because you're adding words to what he says.
Even if true, it is not necessarily misanthropic, nor is it incompatible with a desire of human dignity and autonomy.
Royale: This always fascinates me: Why doesn't his obsession with human vivisection and his tearing out of the kidneys of one of his assisted suicides have ANY impact on you? The man is a ghoul, not a saint. The evidence is there. It bounces off people's heads.
What I find ghoulish is the selfishness of some people who are unwilling to donate their organs after death. What's the difference between that and experimenting on the dead? None, really. It's not like they're doing what Mengele did to the Jews in the name of 'research.' No one was forced to go to Kevorkian.
It makes him an outlier on medical ethics, sure.
But a misanthrope? I need more than that. Presumably, I would expect he'd want to use the information gained from his experiments to better humanity, which in my book, would be the opposite of misanthropy.
Likewise, all of this is completely compatible with a desire of personal autonomy, which could very well be his primary motive. All you have revealed is that he might have OTHER motives. But that does not preclude another.
OK, let me flip it around, the organ transplant lobby opposes motorcycle helmet safety laws. Take a guess why. By the logic presented here, they must be misanthropic ghouls, for after all, they're sacrificing other people's lives to fulfill their agenda.
No.
Opportunistic? Sure.
Concerned about personal liberty? Quite possibly, since it does not contradict their opportunism.
The betterment of humanity is a vague goal; all sorts of lovers of humanity have done immeasurable harm to countless individual human beings. In any case, Kevorkian's touting of individual liberties came after he decided that euthanasia or assisted suicide would provide subjects for his quack experimentation. It's a front, and a mighty thin one at that. His first and only true love is death.
Experimenting on the dead isn't the issue? Don't you read carefully? HE WANTED TO EXPERIMENT ON THE LIVING BEFORE KILLING THEM. Big difference.
That's what Mengele said. That is what the "researchers" in Tuskagee believed. Moreover, if you see what he wanted to research--as I quoted from his own book--it was pure quackery.
I really think we have lost our moral compass in this country.
"It's a front, and a mighty thin one at that. His first and only true love is death."
That's quite possible. But I don't know and I doubt you do either.
Since I don't know the motivations of people I know personally, let alone the ones I've never met, I refrain from stating what their true loves must be.
Actually, it isn't a love of death, but a fear of and obsession with death that dates back to his med school days when he was given the moniker Dr. Death. That name is NOT from the 1990s.
The record is clear, and mostly in his own words.
Wesley, do you know what his financial status is? In the 60 Minutes interview, they said he was receiving a pension of about $900 / month.
Is that all he has? Or did his legal fights bankrupt him?
Kevorkian has never been someone much interested in money or material comforts. His legal services were provided pro bono during the 1990s. He also did not charge for assisted suicide. He has usually lived in houses or apartments given to him for use by friends without rent.
His lawyer says he will now be making $50,000-$100,000 per speech. We will see if that proves as true as the lawyer's claim that Kevorkian wouldn't live to see his parole in 2007.
But I don't think Kevorkian really cares about that. He likes the attention, but really seems indifferent to issues of wealth and luxury.
Perhaps it would have been more precise to call death his obsession, rather than his love. Certainly it is his fascination with it that (as he himself has stated) has provided his impetus, before all else.
Winston Jen 2.0 writes:
"Hmmm... That reminds me of people like Wesley and the late Mother Teresa, who loved suffering, and believed that people have a 'duty to live' so that other people can use that as an incredibly selfish opportunity to 'look compassionate'."
Winston, we've explain to you many times that this is a gross mischaracterization of Wesley's position. His argument is simply that good can sometimes come out of the dying process, and that it is this sort of vision that we should promote rather than the nihilistic one that offers suicide as the only response. You are certainly free to reject that, but at the very least stop distorting it.
*quote*Mother Teresa said that the SUFFERING of the poor was beautiful. Hmmm. Sounds pretty damn sadistic to me. */quote*
Are you really that ignorant of Catholic theology? She was a Nun, she's not going to be speaking exactly as you may wish-- she'll be speaking in the context of her theology.
Go learn a bit before you start slandering folks, would you?
Bernhardt, it appears to me that insisting that people suffer for the benefits of others is not compassionate. And even if good can *sometimes* come out of the dying process, why should everyone be forced to die naturally? Pro-lifers certainly aren't willing to lead by example. Why should anyone trust them?
Perhaps pro-lifers aren't pathetic wusses who take the easy way out.
I don't want to suffer a long, lingering death. But I don't want to be killed unnaturally either. Death is not my call.
There are moral limits to bodily autonomy- and that limit is when you intend to kill yourself or another.
Yet another example of pro-life hypocrisy and cowardice. I can understand why you'd oppose murder - pretty much everyone does. But why oppose suicide? It's not like they're hurting anyone else. Why protect them from themselves? If you're going to appeal to side-effects, then they can be dealt with by the patient behaving obnoxiously towards family and friends. That way, his family and friends wouldn't want to keep him around.
Why are you insisting on owning the lives of others and insisting that they die 'naturally'? Should anything that can shorten life be outlawed, such as cigarettes? What about people whose religion forbids blood transfusions? Should they be allowed to follow their religion, or be forced to accept blood transfusions? Were Holocaust victims who committed suicide rather than be tortured to death being immoral?
And people like you, Jacque, frequently change their minds when they are in the hot seat and suffering unbearably.
And another thing:
Why do you oppose voluntary euthanasia? You worship a being (Jesus) who not only committed suicide by cop, but had his death hastened (he died several hours before the robbers crucified on either side of him, according to your own bible).
First attacking Mother Theresa and now Jesus Christ. Wow! You're on a roll! I'll back away from you rather than get the residual shock from the lightning you have duly earned.
I want to address your ignorance about Jesus Christ properly, so I will return later to discuss that. Your belief that his death was suicide and that it was hastened is contrary to scripture and history. I suppose all of those people awaiting execution on death row are all committing suicide if they stop struggling against the courts?
But, let me address your first comment: I once considered myself a rabid libertarian, believing that anything an adult does, by themselves or with other consenting adults, is nobody's business. But then I realized that victimless crimes are hardly victimless. Many of them amount to coercion, extortion and desperation- and epitomize social injustice. I went to Tijuana and saw prositutes there. It's very sobering to see women knitting baby booties while waiting for a man to come along to violate their dignity and endanger their health. So, while my ideology said, "Prostitution! It's sex between consenting adults. How should that be illegal?" my conscience said, "This is exploitation of women. It destroys women and children and this sort of injustice should never be condoned by making this atrocity legal."
It's the same thing with legalizing suicide. It's a matter of social justice. Those that would choose suicide are those in need of real solutions: medication for depression, medical advancements in pain control, ad nauseum. I've had some pretty debilitating broken hearts, some that I doubted would ever heal- committing suicide wasn't an option for me, but who am I to judge, you say. Let the teenagers, divorcees, and others experiencing a loss of relationship or even a death of a loved one end their emotional turmoil through suicide! How is that justice?
Thank you very much for assuming so little of my character that you would think me the type to kill myself rather than endure hardship. Whether or not I have the fortitude has never been tested, but your assumption is greatly appreciated! We'll forgot that my personal moral fiber has nothing to do with the morality of legalized suicide. Any more ad hominem assumptions there, Tony?
How did Jesus *NOT* commit suicide? He knew exactly what was going to happen, how to get out of it, and yet he still acted in a manner that would get him crucified.
Prostitution is victimless if it is properly regulated. Same with assisted suicide. And sadly, even with the best pain control, palliative care is quite dull and boring, just like existence as a quadraplegic most of the time. Some of them probably say what you want them to say to end the 'counselling.'
As for *un*-assisted suicide, it's been legal for quite some time now. Only doctors and vets are able to get the drugs needed for a peaceful death, though.
You worship a being (Jesus) who not only committed suicide by cop, but had his death hastened (he died several hours before the robbers crucified on either side of him, according to your own bible).
You need a theology lesson, Tony.
"Jesus was offered a drink of wine mixed with myrrh as a mild analgesic which He tasted and then refused (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23; Psa. 69:21)."
He refused pain medication, because His suffering was our redemption. His death and suffering is what merits us the hope of salvation- like the suffering of the dying in Calcutta (which Mother Theresa spoke of) is redemptive, and the sick and dying in America is also redemptive. Suffering is an inevitable aspect of the human condition and serves to make us better people, if we choose to accept it rather than hang ourselves in the closet. Now, this does not mean that we don't perform acts of mercy to alleviate suffering to the extent that we can (as Blessed Mother Theresa did), it's that what suffering we can not control will benefit our characters and our souls.
Jesus freely accepted His crucifixion, but He didn't scourage Himself or nail Himself to that cross. Freely accepting one's suffering (like choosing to live through a terminal illness rather than killing one's self) is a moral act or righteousness and submission, whereas self-murder is an immoral act of cowardice and selfishness. Jesus choose to accept His fate because it redeemed humanity. I choose to accept any fates that await me because it redeems me, and because I don't have the authority to kill a human being, even if the human being is myself.
So Jesus accepting His fate for OUR SAKE was not suicide. His death was not hastened, but natural. Because He died earlier than the robbers do not suggest that His death was hastened. In fact, the breaking of the legs was meant to hasten death and Christ's legs were not broken (in fufillment of scriptures). The scouraging He endured was enough to kill Him before the cruficixion, which is why the Romans ordered someone to carry Christ's cross, so He would be crucified, not die of scouraging.
palliative care is quite dull and boring, just like existence as a quadraplegic most of the time
The existence of a quadraplegic is dull and boring? Say that to the face of a quadraplegic. I love that you condascend to make statements about the quality of the lives of the disabled based on your speculation (Being a quadraplegic doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me, but I am a statistician and I'm sure that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to many people). It's bigotted attitudes such as yours where assisted suicide slips right into euthanasia because the able-bodied perceive that killing a quadraplegic is acceptable because, hey, "their lives are dull and boring". And it's not like a quadreplegic has the ability to defend himself. Perhaps that's why the Nazis began with killing the disabled; like the predator goes for the weakest prey, the bigotted go for those least able to defend themselves.
As for *un*-assisted suicide, it's been legal for quite some time now
Actually, no it's not. If you succeed, it's not like authorities could prosecute you but if you attempt suicide or even threaten to do so, you are promptly detained by police officers and put in a mental institution until you are no longer a threat to your self.
(He refused pain medication, because His suffering was our redemption. His death and suffering is what merits us the hope of salvation- like the suffering of the dying in Calcutta (which Mother Theresa spoke of) is redemptive, and the sick and dying in America is also redemptive. Suffering is an inevitable aspect of the human condition and serves to make us better people, if we choose to accept it rather than hang ourselves in the closet. Now, this does not mean that we don't perform acts of mercy to alleviate suffering to the extent that we can (as Blessed Mother Theresa did), it's that what suffering we can not control will benefit our characters and our souls.
Jesus freely accepted His crucifixion, but He didn't scourage Himself or nail Himself to that cross. Freely accepting one's suffering (like choosing to live through a terminal illness rather than killing one's self) is a moral act or righteousness and submission, whereas self-murder is an immoral act of cowardice and selfishness. Jesus choose to accept His fate because it redeemed humanity. I choose to accept any fates that await me because it redeems me, and because I don't have the authority to kill a human being, even if the human being is myself. )
Wow, what a loving god! [/sarcasm]
Why can't he just forgive us? I wouldn't demand payment in suffering or blood if someone wronged me. Looks to me like I'm more merciful than your god.
And it wasn't even a sacrifice because he got his life back. And his death *was* hastened, because crucifixion leads to death after a coma.
(Actually, no it's not. If you succeed, it's not like authorities could prosecute you but if you attempt suicide or even threaten to do so, you are promptly detained by police officers and put in a mental institution until you are no longer a threat to your self.)
That just gives them more encouragement to succeed. Pro-life policies backfire yet again! Slightly off-topic, but did you know that the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in the world?
Okay. No more Jesus talk, please. Thank you.
Off topic query: I was told when I was in the Netherlands researching FORCED EXIT that abortion is low there because the use of birth control is high. This is so because of public expectations. Men and women who have an unwanted pregnancy are made to feel ashamed for not controlling and managing their sexuality. In other words, I was told that peer pressure is the primaryh reason that women having fewer unwanted pregnancies in the Netherlands.
No more about that, either please.
Thank you all.
Wesley-
Tony can mischaracterize the nature of God and blastpheme till he's blue in the face but I can't respond? This is topic has eternal implications!
Tony direly needs to understand the concept of justice vs. arbitrary forgiveness, and what is required to be redeemed from an eternity of firey torment, especially since he's such a big fan of rushing headlong into the hereafter.
May I please respond? Pleeeeeease?
Can't do it JacquefromTexas. That is a discussion that would never end. If Tony is interested, he can send me his e-mail and you send me your e-mail, and I will play matchmaker.
We can just have at it on my now defunct blog if he decides to go there.
...dull and boring, just like existence as a quadraplegic most of the time...
Winston, how could my existence possibly be "dull and boring" when I have all the great entertainment that your shenanigans here provide? ;-)
"...dull and boring, just like existence as a quadraplegic most of the time..."
With the development of both computers that can read eye movements (See Stephen Hawking) and cyber entertainment, a quadrapalegic could easily find an enjoyable life playing World of Warcraft, Second life, etc...
How many of us who are able-bodied spend too much our lives playing those. I don't think any of that is wrong, but our society is developing a lot of methods of mental escapism.
As many of these incurable debilitating diseases strike the body and not the mind, so long as the mind is intact, you could entertain yourself.
I know I would. ;)
Interesting perspective, Royale. Still, when the novelty wears off and I cannot keep myself entertained, I'd take a lethal injection over self-starvation or 'counselling' any day.
I have something similar in my living will. Should my brain go, but my body be intact, please exploit my physical remains for medicine.
Yes, that includes pumping me full of HIV to test a vaccine.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home