Jack Kevorkian a.k.a Dr Death has died.

Oceanbreeze said:
It also was an easy thing to do; as weird as that may sound. It was easy because it was what HE wanted. As his daughter, it was NOT up to me to argue with him. We were going into the unknown, so the LW was assurance that if something went wrong, he would leave this world as gently as possible.

In all honesty, it's a bit more messy now. He's terminally ill, but stable at the moment. He hasn't reached the point of needing hospise, but he will at some point. So, we're facing this by simply taking things day by day. We're also thankful that he is still is as active as he is. We also don't look to the future all that much (at least, I don't). I live in the moment. I live in the here and now. If I didn't, I think I would have lost my mind already.

I've said this before, but, unless you're experiencing life with a loved one with a terminal illness (or 2 or 3), you really don't have a clue what it's like.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know exactly what you are saying about difficult and easy at the same time.

In the here and now is where you need to be. The past can't be changed, and tomorrow isn't here yet.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It also was an easy thing to do; as weird as that may sound. It was easy because it was what HE wanted. As his daughter, it was NOT up to me to argue with him. We were going into the unknown, so the LW was assurance that if something went wrong, he would leave this world as gently as possible.

In all honesty, it's a bit more messy now. He's terminally ill, but stable at the moment. He hasn't reached the point of needing hospise, but he will at some point. So, we're facing this by simply taking things day by day. We're also thankful that he is still is as active as he is. We also don't look to the future all that much (at least, I don't). I live in the moment. I live in the here and now. If I didn't, I think I would have lost my mind already.

I've said this before, but, unless you're experiencing life with a loved one with a terminal illness (or 2 or 3), you really don't have a clue what it's like.
Click to expand...

Oceanbreeze - I commend you for your loving actions for your father. I will be facing the same with my mother. She does have a terminal illness and the docs have said anywhere from 6 months to 5 years. It's hard to say how long the cirrhosis will take. We have already completed the living wills and power of attorneys and all. My brothers did not want the responsibility and decided that since she lived with me for the last 18 years, it should be me handling all the arrangements even though I am the "baby". We will be doing Hospice at Home when the time comes. Her doctors are already aware of this and when we informed her primary care doctor, he made arrangements to have her hematologist be from the Hospice doctors so that a relationship is already started. Mom is having more and more confusing days and gets slower about things, but cannot just settle down. She has to keep moving, so we let her do what she can, and go back and redo what needs to be redone, like refolding laundry or rewashing dishes. I think the hardest things for me was signing her DNR.

I personally am glad to know that Dr. Death has passed on. I don't see it as a massive news article, but then I try not to dwell on the news much anyway.
 
jillio said:
Whether or not the patient "needed to die" is still not something that was addressed in the court case, or by the jurors. What was addressed was Kervorkian's actions.

He was force fed.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? Michigan changed its law regarding force-feeding on the very day he was convicted. News stories at the time all said that he threatened to starve himself, and he "knew" he would be force-fed. But when the time came, Michigan's law no longer allowed force-feeding. Prisoners who refused food and drink for 72 hours had to sign a waiver that said they knew what they were doing. But they would not be force-fed.

Kevorkian Won't Be Force-Fed - CBS News
 
deafskeptic said:
I have to say I'm impressed because starving is one of the more painful ways to go.
Click to expand...

He never starved himself or even attempted to starve himself, despite his threats/promises to do so. Contemporary accounts that I've found recount his threats, but also point out that Michigan's law was changed and he would not be force-fed if he wanted to starve himself.

Since he lived to see himself get out of jail several years later, obviously he was eating.
 
Beach girl said:
You sure about that? Michigan changed its law regarding force-feeding on the very day he was convicted. News stories at the time all said that he threatened to starve himself, and he "knew" he would be force-fed. But when the time came, Michigan's law no longer allowed force-feeding. Prisoners who refused food and drink for 72 hours had to sign a waiver that said they knew what they were doing. But they would not be force-fed.

Kevorkian Won't Be Force-Fed - CBS News
Click to expand...

Yep. Sure about that. He did not sign the waiver. Federal law supercedes state law. And the state is charged with his custody. The waiver has to be signed before they are relieved of responsibility for preserving life.

But, in the end, he didn't need death to make his point. Prison did it sufficiently. And that was his purpose. Being willing to sacrifice personal freedom to stand up for that which he believed in.

Still and all...none of it has anything to do with whether or not another "didn't need to die."
 
jillio said:
Yep. Sure about that. He did not sign the waiver. Federal law supercedes state law. And the state is charged with his custody. The waiver has to be signed before they are relieved of responsibility for preserving life.

But, in the end, he didn't need death to make his point. Prison did it sufficiently. And that was his purpose. Being willing to sacrifice personal freedom to stand up for that which he believed in.

Still and all...none of it has anything to do with whether or not another "didn't need to die."
Click to expand...

He didn't sign the waiver because he never attempted to starve himself.

Kevorkian warps the value he touts

"Let us not forget that Kevorkian broke, and broke again, not only the law but also his word. During his killing spree, he posed as a medical savior and promised to starve himself to death if sent to prison. "I know they are going to force-feed me," he declared, "and I'm not going to go along with it." It never came to that. Kevorkian is feeding himself. "

(from an opinion piece in the Detroit Free Press in 2002)

My apologies for using the shorthand "didn't need to die." It was a take-off on the fairly common colloquial phrase of "that man needs killin'." Maybe it's just a Southern colloquialism and you haven't heard that saying.

Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder. Thus the judge convicted him of killing someone unlawfully. Thus killing someone who, colloquially speaking, "didn't need killin'," legally.

Not necessarily morally or ethically; my personal feelings are that it was totally understandable for the man to want to die, and Kevorkian was doing him a service. However, the judge didn't see it that way.
 
Reba said:
After the first few pictures, I skipped the page. That so-called "art" is gruesome. He might have had some technical painting skill but I can't stand looking at it. I don't want nightmares.

He must have had a tormented soul. Sad.
Click to expand...

yes his soul was tormented because he had to deal with patients being tortured by archaic legal system and hypocrisy on daily basis.
 
Beach girl said:
He didn't sign the waiver because he never attempted to starve himself.

Kevorkian warps the value he touts

"Let us not forget that Kevorkian broke, and broke again, not only the law but also his word. During his killing spree, he posed as a medical savior and promised to starve himself to death if sent to prison. "I know they are going to force-feed me," he declared, "and I'm not going to go along with it." It never came to that. Kevorkian is feeding himself. "

(from an opinion piece in the Detroit Free Press in 2002)

My apologies for using the shorthand "didn't need to die." It was a take-off on the fairly common colloquial phrase of "that man needs killin'." Maybe it's just a Southern colloquialism and you haven't heard that saying.

Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder. Thus the judge convicted him of killing someone unlawfully. Thus killing someone who, colloquially speaking, "didn't need killin'," legally.

Not necessarily morally or ethically; my personal feelings are that it was totally understandable for the man to want to die, and Kevorkian was doing him a service. However, the judge didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was convicted of second degree murder. Still had nothing to do with whether his patients "did not need to die." Evidently, the very patients he served would disagree with that, as they requested his service. And they are the ones that can make that determination for themselves. Not you, not anyone. The issue had virtually nothing to do with patient need.

How do you kill someone legally, other than through the death penalty? Which is a whole other emotionally charged topic.

Had Kervorkian simply supplied the medication and the patient had adminsitered it with his own hand, he would never have been charged with murder, even though he provided the means to a death. The patient was incapable of administering the meds. So Kervorkian administered them. Still, he was only providing the means to allow the patient to complete his desired suicide. The fact that Kervorkian administered the meds is the only thing that even allowed him to be charged. Silly, silly legal system.

As far as him warping his values...he wasn't at the end stage of a terminal disease. His patients were. Huge, huge difference. Not starving himself allowed him to retain the possiblity of helping yet another patient, and that is the foundation of what his values consisted of.
 
jillio said:
Yes, he was convicted of second degree murder. Still had nothing to do with whether his patients "did not need to die." Evidently, the very patients he served would disagree with that, as they requested his service. And they are the ones that can make that determination for themselves. Not you, not anyone. The issue had virtually nothing to do with patient need.

How do you kill someone legally, other than through the death penalty?Had Kervorkian simply supplied the medication and the patient had adminsitered it with his own hand, he would never have been charged with murder, even though he provided the means to a death. The patient was incapable of administering the meds. So Kervorkian administered them. Still, he was only providing the means to allow the patient to complete his desired suicide. The fact that Kervorkian administered the meds is the only thing that even allowed him to be charged. Silly, silly legal system.
Click to expand...

Self-defense, for instance.
Or soldiers killing enemy forces in time of war.

As I said, my off-hand comment was a take-off on a colloquial expression. Not meant to be taken absolutely literally.
 
Beach girl said:
Self-defense, for instance.
Or soldiers killing enemy forces in time of war.

As I said, my off-hand comment was a take-off on a colloquial expression. Not meant to be taken absolutely literally.[/QUOTEt]
Those are quite different circumstances and provide a degree of provocation. Assisted suicide does not. Killing someone in their sleep does not. Killing a prisoner does not.

Then why are you continuing to argue the point?
Click to expand...
 
Rest in Peace, Jack Kevorkian. :(

Suffering is very painful and no one want to go through the pain. I remembered watching a program (maybe a T.V. serie, but don't remember the title, also not sure if it is a movie, either) about a man who happened to be his friend and a medic in the war. The man was in great pain and there was no hospital closer (they were in the middle of no where in the war). The friend want to save him but the man who suffered great pain told him no as he would rather die than suffer through pain as the pain is terrible. No one should have to go through pain very intense like cancer or leukemia (not sure about the spelling). Having an intense pain is so great that it is necessary to die so that there will be no pain to suffer on the long process. It need to do that quickly and dignity to pass away.

I do know one person from the island here who was a great salesman (furniture store), actor (theater), father, husband, brother and a great friend to many of us here on the island. He had leukemia and he does not want to suffered any more pain which is very intense and agony. He would rather died than lived in pain so much. He would rather died in dignity. I surely miss him and not have him being around us anymore, but we will always remembered him best. We all liked him very much. He was wonderful. :(
 
netrox said:
Funny how we have no problems putting animals to sleep because we feel it's best that they be taken out of their misery but we have problems when it comes to humans!
Click to expand...

Dr. Nancy Snyderman said that on Nightly News tonight!
 
Wow. For the life of me I cannot figure out why people are against assisted suicide but are okay with DNR's.
 
Beowulf said:
Wow. For the life of me I cannot figure out why people are against assisted suicide but are okay with DNR's.
Click to expand...

Because they have no idea of the criteria for assisted suicide. I have encountered some amazing ignorance on this very topic.
 
The two are totally different things. My mom had a DNR order on her charts, after suffering congestive heart failure once and being "brought back." She had fluid drained from near her heart and other interventions that left her bruised and hurt. After that, she said "never again" and put DNR on the chart.

But no way would she have wanted assisted suicide. In her situation, she was not in great pain, was still in full possession of her mental faculties, enjoyed life, enjoyed being taken out to concerts and other social events, etc. She socialized with her friends at the nursing home, and my sisters visited for at least a few minutes almost every day.

My mom died peacefully 3 days after her 91st birthday, a few months after the episode of heart failure where they did a lot of interventions. She slipped first into a coma that lasted a few hours, and then passed peacefully. Both my sisters were with her, reading to her while she was still awake, and then they played some soft music for her after she slipped into a coma.

My mom was in no hurry to leave this life, but she was at peace when she did.

I appreciate that she was one of the fortunate ones in her manner of dying.
 
Beach girl said:
The two are totally different things. My mom had a DNR order on her charts, after suffering congestive heart failure once and being "brought back." She had fluid drained from near her heart and other interventions that left her bruised and hurt. After that, she said "never again" and put DNR on the chart.

But no way would she have wanted assisted suicide. In her situation, she was not in great pain, was still in full possession of her mental faculties, enjoyed life, enjoyed being taken out to concerts and other social events, etc. She socialized with her friends at the nursing home, and my sisters visited for at least a few minutes almost every day.

My mom died peacefully 3 days after her 91st birthday, a few months after the episode of heart failure where they did a lot of interventions. She slipped first into a coma that lasted a few hours, and then passed peacefully. Both my sisters were with her, reading to her while she was still awake, and then they played some soft music for her after she slipped into a coma.

My mom was in no hurry to leave this life, but she was at peace when she did.

I appreciate that she was one of the fortunate ones in her manner of dying.
Click to expand...
I agree. Two different things. One is allowing nature to take its place the other is not.
 
Back
Top