Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Humble Servant · Jun 2, 2007, 03:40 pm

Link RTÉ News: Assisted-suicide advocate released

As for me I am undecided about Doctor assisted suicide. I do however think that Kevorkian was in it because he enjoyed watching people die. Kind of like a kid with a magnifying glass and ants to burn. I admit fully that I do not know the man or his motives but this is my take on the situation. What do you think?

Milton Bradley · Jun 2, 2007, 04:03 pm

I think he went to bat for a philosophy that he held deeply.

Humble Servant · Jun 2, 2007, 04:09 pm

I have no doubt that he had a philosophy he held deeply. However just because one holds deeply to a philosophy does not make it a philosophy of value.

Mozart1220 · Jun 2, 2007, 04:10 pm

Saying that Kavorkian "enjoyed watching people die" is about as idiotic a statement as I have seen on any board anywhere, and that's going some.

He hated watching people suffer is more like it.

Why is it OK to put a dog to sleep so that it won't suffer, but grandma has to languish in a hospital bed with tubes and wires sticking out of her because we value the "sanctity of life"?

Maybe I should be glad I don't understand that "logic".

Humble Servant · Jun 3, 2007, 01:44 am

Motzart grandma does not have to suffer. Its called a living will and do not resuscitate orders. Most of the time grandma is in that position because either she failed to plan for her eventual demise or she is so afraid of dying that she is willing to endure "heroic" lifesaving measures for just one more second of life at any cost be it physical or financial.

And I never said I was against the idea of assisted suicide but I do question Kevorkian's methods and motives. He could have obeyed the law of the land and upheld the oath he took as a doctor to do no harm and worked through the legal system to change the way things are. Yes it would have taken time. But something that dramatically changes the worldview of an entire country should take time.

megadeth425 · Jun 3, 2007, 02:36 am

But to what avail? He could very easily have failed miserably in his efforts and then what would he have? He didn't help anyone because instead of ending their suffering, he he'd instead be trapped in a legal system that more than often shuns change.

Jubloz · Jun 3, 2007, 02:57 am

Quote:

Quote by: Humble Servant

Motzart grandma does not have to suffer. Its called a living will and do not resuscitate orders. Most of the time grandma is in that position because either she failed to plan for her eventual demise or she is so afraid of dying that she is willing to endure "heroic" lifesaving measures for just one more second of life at any cost be it physical or financial.

And I never said I was against the idea of assisted suicide but I do question Kevorkian's methods and motives. He could have obeyed the law of the land and upheld the oath he took as a doctor to do no harm and worked through the legal system to change the way things are. Yes it would have taken time. But something that dramatically changes the worldview of an entire country should take time.

And what of the terminally ill? You can plan all you want, but if cancer consumes you you probably weren't fully anticipating it. Many diseases, such as cancer, don't always kill a person rapidly, but instead force them to endure months, or even years, of torture and agony until their inevitable death. Furthermore, how does encouraging or, more specifically, forcing an individual to continue living who is suffering immense amount of pain fall under "do no harm"? I see this as a pretty twisted view on the word "harm". Are you trying to claim that havoc being wreaked on your nervous system doesn't fall under "harm", yet respecting an individual's autonomy and allowing them to skip their suffering is does? That seems pretty off to to me.

Humble Servant · Jun 3, 2007, 10:58 am

Once again people: I am not saying that assisted suicide is not an option. What I am saying is that in this country (US) there is the option of changing the law by using the courts and voting. Could it be defeated, of course but it could also be approved which I have no doubt will come to pass. Will it take time, yes but everything does. As far as people who are terminal nothing is stopping them from ending their own lives if they chose. What could anyone do about it if they did? Even though it is against the law in most states I'm pretty sure no one is going to put the corpse in jail.

Jubloz · Jun 3, 2007, 02:35 pm

Because there are a lot of people who would prefer a professionally administered pain-free death, not throwing a rope across a beam and attempting to lynch themselves, or popping pills just to potentially fail an attempt. Also, if a suicide fails, it's quite possible that the terminal person will be restrained from any further attempts. Suicide watch; great way to spend the last moments of your life, right? Also, keep in mind that the psychology behind someone who is trying to kill themselves in a moment of emotional peak, and someone who is fatigued by having to stay alive and endure physical pain, is going to be drastically different. The typical suicidal individual likely will be only thinking of themselves in the moment of attempt, whereas a terminally ill individual will still have friends and family in mind. Another issue with suicide by the terminally ill is that insurance companies will refuse to pay compensation, thus forcing a number of people to stay alive and suffer for the well being of their families.

Osborn F Enready · Jun 4, 2007, 10:39 pm

Glad to see Kevorkian out finally, especially since his jailing was wrong to begin with in my opinion.

Jubloz · Jun 5, 2007, 12:20 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

Glad to see Kevorkian out finally, especially since his jailing was wrong to begin with in my opinion.

Amen to that, it's a shame that he was imprisoned in the first place, and I imagine he'll one day be recorded as a hero and a sort of martyr.

Osborn F Enready · Jun 5, 2007, 12:56 am

He is already a hero in my book.

grandpa · Jun 5, 2007, 09:09 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

He is already a hero in my book.

While he's not a hero of mine, I do think assisted suicide is okay.

Grandpa h.

ZNFYRH · Jun 5, 2007, 09:29 am

The problem is he was busted on a technicality.

Normally he set up conditions so the person could kill themselves, and he was under scrutiny for doing things the way he did.

I think the one that got him in trouble was because, technically, Kevorkian himself is the one who injected the person instead of them doing it on their own.

Other than that, I think he was doing a good thing. If someone is in that much pain and wants to die, he assisted them. And it's not like he helped just anyone kill themselves. They really had to be in a significant amount of pain and suffering.

Jun 2, 2007, 03:40 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Humble Servant Dazed and Bruised Posts: 80	Dr. Death released from prison Link RTÉ News: Assisted-suicide advocate released As for me I am undecided about Doctor assisted suicide. I do however think that Kevorkian was in it because he enjoyed watching people die. Kind of like a kid with a magnifying glass and ants to burn. I admit fully that I do not know the man or his motives but this is my take on the situation. What do you think?

Jun 2, 2007, 04:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	Saying that Kavorkian "enjoyed watching people die" is about as idiotic a statement as I have seen on any board anywhere, and that's going some. He hated watching people suffer is more like it. Why is it OK to put a dog to sleep so that it won't suffer, but grandma has to languish in a hospital bed with tubes and wires sticking out of her because we value the "sanctity of life"? Maybe I should be glad I don't understand that "logic". Big Jr is watching you!

Jun 3, 2007, 02:36 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
megadeth425 Air Guitar Hero Location: Canada Posts: 125	But to what avail? He could very easily have failed miserably in his efforts and then what would he have? He didn't help anyone because instead of ending their suffering, he he'd instead be trapped in a legal system that more than often shuns change. "People always associate long hair with drug use. I wish long hair was associated with something other than drug use, like an extreme longing for cake." ~Mitch Hedberg

Jun 4, 2007, 10:39 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Glad to see Kevorkian out finally, especially since his jailing was wrong to begin with in my opinion. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jun 5, 2007, 12:56 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	He is already a hero in my book. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jun 2, 2007, 04:03 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	I think he went to bat for a philosophy that he held deeply.

Jun 2, 2007, 04:09 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Humble Servant Dazed and Bruised Posts: 80	I have no doubt that he had a philosophy he held deeply. However just because one holds deeply to a philosophy does not make it a philosophy of value.

Jun 3, 2007, 01:44 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Humble Servant Dazed and Bruised Posts: 80	Motzart grandma does not have to suffer. Its called a living will and do not resuscitate orders. Most of the time grandma is in that position because either she failed to plan for her eventual demise or she is so afraid of dying that she is willing to endure "heroic" lifesaving measures for just one more second of life at any cost be it physical or financial. And I never said I was against the idea of assisted suicide but I do question Kevorkian's methods and motives. He could have obeyed the law of the land and upheld the oath he took as a doctor to do no harm and worked through the legal system to change the way things are. Yes it would have taken time. But something that dramatically changes the worldview of an entire country should take time.

Jun 3, 2007, 10:58 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Humble Servant Dazed and Bruised Posts: 80	Once again people: I am not saying that assisted suicide is not an option. What I am saying is that in this country (US) there is the option of changing the law by using the courts and voting. Could it be defeated, of course but it could also be approved which I have no doubt will come to pass. Will it take time, yes but everything does. As far as people who are terminal nothing is stopping them from ending their own lives if they chose. What could anyone do about it if they did? Even though it is against the law in most states I'm pretty sure no one is going to put the corpse in jail.

Jun 3, 2007, 02:35 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Jubloz Zolbuj Location: California Posts: 1,267	Because there are a lot of people who would prefer a professionally administered pain-free death, not throwing a rope across a beam and attempting to lynch themselves, or popping pills just to potentially fail an attempt. Also, if a suicide fails, it's quite possible that the terminal person will be restrained from any further attempts. Suicide watch; great way to spend the last moments of your life, right? Also, keep in mind that the psychology behind someone who is trying to kill themselves in a moment of emotional peak, and someone who is fatigued by having to stay alive and endure physical pain, is going to be drastically different. The typical suicidal individual likely will be only thinking of themselves in the moment of attempt, whereas a terminally ill individual will still have friends and family in mind. Another issue with suicide by the terminally ill is that insurance companies will refuse to pay compensation, thus forcing a number of people to stay alive and suffer for the well being of their families.

Jun 5, 2007, 09:29 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	The problem is he was busted on a technicality. Normally he set up conditions so the person could kill themselves, and he was under scrutiny for doing things the way he did. I think the one that got him in trouble was because, technically, Kevorkian himself is the one who injected the person instead of them doing it on their own. Other than that, I think he was doing a good thing. If someone is in that much pain and wants to die, he assisted them. And it's not like he helped just anyone kill themselves. They really had to be in a significant amount of pain and suffering.