Jack Kevorkian
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Here is my take.
If my dog comes down with an incurable condition that is terminal and faces a long period of suffering before eventual death. It is comforting to know that he can be euthanized and pass in peace with us by his side.
If my parent faces the same situation? Months in the hospital on a ****tail of mind numbing drugs followed by months in hospice with even stronger drugs until the pain meds don’t even work anymore and each day is spent in pain and suffering. Unable to eat, in and out of consciousness, then machines to take over the breathing, etc. etc. Finally, an uncomfortable death caused by the drugs or pneumonia. So in the end they were killed legally by our medical system, but only after a long and painful process.
Now answer this: If you were seriously ill, would you rather be my dog or my parent?
Radical renegade thinkers like Jack Kevorkian who have the guts to stand up to a broken system are necessary and vital in bringing attention to a flawed system and forcing change.
When I was facing death, my wife and I stopped by the Attorney’s office first and the hospital second. Along with the traditional will we had a living will and a “Do not resuscitate” order drawn up.
Years ago these documents were unheard of and the hospital would have ignored them. Now, people have a little more control over their fate.
Assisted suicide is now legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana.
I could never chose that route but it seems that in a free country it is a contradiction not to allow people a choice in controlling their ultimate fate.
If my dog comes down with an incurable condition that is terminal and faces a long period of suffering before eventual death. It is comforting to know that he can be euthanized and pass in peace with us by his side.
If my parent faces the same situation? Months in the hospital on a ****tail of mind numbing drugs followed by months in hospice with even stronger drugs until the pain meds don’t even work anymore and each day is spent in pain and suffering. Unable to eat, in and out of consciousness, then machines to take over the breathing, etc. etc. Finally, an uncomfortable death caused by the drugs or pneumonia. So in the end they were killed legally by our medical system, but only after a long and painful process.
Now answer this: If you were seriously ill, would you rather be my dog or my parent?
Radical renegade thinkers like Jack Kevorkian who have the guts to stand up to a broken system are necessary and vital in bringing attention to a flawed system and forcing change.
When I was facing death, my wife and I stopped by the Attorney’s office first and the hospital second. Along with the traditional will we had a living will and a “Do not resuscitate” order drawn up.
Years ago these documents were unheard of and the hospital would have ignored them. Now, people have a little more control over their fate.
Assisted suicide is now legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana.
I could never chose that route but it seems that in a free country it is a contradiction not to allow people a choice in controlling their ultimate fate.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Really?
Radical Renegade thinker?
How about frustrated old man who didn't have the nerve to help his sister?
Flawed system?
It is now flawed.
Jack ruined it for thousands of people, not helped one bit the issue and like many other liberals, he felt the medical profession should be forced to think and act as he wanted them to.
He screwed up the entire system because he was an outsider to patient care, took the "crusade" on without understanding or caring about the privacy between the doctor and the patient (Roe v,. Wade anyone?) and **ck it all up for everyone by killing people in parks and hotel rooms - how d*mn disgusting.
The POS should have died in prison where he deserves to be, he wasn't a doctor, he was a pathologist and a **** poor one at that.
SO what you think was a positive thing in bringing it out in the open actually did this;
1 - a lot of doctors are now scrutinized and monitored when it comes down to a dying patient. Hospitals and private practices have had to reinforce the legal end of the business to prevent a "crime". They now take more precautions and more "clarification" ('death' consulting, patient advocate involvement and so on) to cover their a**.
2 - in many states now can have the coroner or the board of inquest be the final say over what happened, can reverse the doctor's DCs and put the burden of proof on the doctor to the point of criminal legal action against the doctor.
3 - you now have involved the state or feds in cases of life and death, and DNRs can be held up in court with a few cases proving that a patient no longer has a final say.
4 - with all of this exposure, the doctor who would have helped now is really reluctant or refuses to help at all.
It comes down to this;
regardless what people think, a lot of doctors will help you end your life because of Cancer or some other disease. But since this idiot's crusade, a lot of things have changed for the worst. A lot of doctors feel that the state should not have the right to force a doctor to do something they don't want to and it is ultimately up to the patient and doctor, not the state, hospital administrators, the health department, the police, the funeral director, the head of nursing, the nurses, the hospital consulars.
He is going to get a job under ObamaCare, taking care of seniors!!!
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Really?
The guy is probably a certified nutbar and yes extremely frustrated. Are you questioning the opinion that he is a "radical" or that he is a "renegade". He is definitely a thinker, we all are.
Really?
Our health care system is not flawed?
Where is Greg and why are you on his computer?
Oh, it's about those **** liberals. Now I see where you are coming from.
We all want the medical profession to act as we want them to and we all have a right to voice our thoughts and feelings.
WOW! He had much more impact than I ever realized. It was Kevorkian that screwed up our whole system and ruined it for everyone.
The park seems like a nice place to pass away peacefully; however, I agree with you 100% on the hotel room. I would not want to be the next guest in that room.
Wishing death on someone who has an opinion different from yours and then judging his work performance?
You are in rare form today.
This is why I would suggest that the EO staff consider a new forum called Rants and Raves. This would allow people who like to go on and on stating their opinion as fact an outlet.
Thank you for disclosing that ( everybody thinks one way but Greg knows better) insider knowledge.
You Sir are a Radical Renegade Thinker.
You seem to be giving this guy a whole lot of credit and perhaps that is why you wish for his death.
This is entertaining and exactly why good natured posters such as Ragman bring up controversial topics.
They count on stirring up some good debate.
In this case it has payed off big time with an unitelligible unsupported prolonged rant that uses profanity, wishes death and blames everything under the sun on one person.
Please, If you are going to use a quote of mine as an introduction to one of your tirades don't misquote me and don't read so far in to it that it serves your agenda and misses the point.
I did not use the word positive, I used the term attention. Crazy people and/or crazy events bring attention to issues and stir up public debate.
The overall issue that I was referring to was the freedom of choice that most Americans would like to have regarding their ultimate fate.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Humble,
There are specific personal reasons why I think it is ruined for a lot of people, I won't bore you with the graphic details or explain the relationship I had with someone close to him and his cause.
I know more than what the public knows, making a hero out of him is never the right thing to do, as much as how much he brought this out in the open. He could have helped his sister, he could have been a proper advocate for patient/doctor privacy but he didn't - did he?
Our medical profession is not the best, it is flawed and that was not what I was talking about but before this it wasn't a case where you had the state, be it local, state or feds involving themselves into what happens between a doctor and a patient, checking into what happened to an unnatural event. What he did wasn't done to right some injustice or immoral act, doctors didn't fear the law until then, they did what they could or thought the patient needed to do based on the patient and/or their convictions but now it is a completely different issue for all involved. If they didn't want to get involved with the issue, the patient in many cases had other options, it wasn't a closed door for them.
I wanted him to serve out his sentence because he was flipping all of us off by his arrogance.
There are specific personal reasons why I think it is ruined for a lot of people, I won't bore you with the graphic details or explain the relationship I had with someone close to him and his cause.
I know more than what the public knows, making a hero out of him is never the right thing to do, as much as how much he brought this out in the open. He could have helped his sister, he could have been a proper advocate for patient/doctor privacy but he didn't - did he?
Our medical profession is not the best, it is flawed and that was not what I was talking about but before this it wasn't a case where you had the state, be it local, state or feds involving themselves into what happens between a doctor and a patient, checking into what happened to an unnatural event. What he did wasn't done to right some injustice or immoral act, doctors didn't fear the law until then, they did what they could or thought the patient needed to do based on the patient and/or their convictions but now it is a completely different issue for all involved. If they didn't want to get involved with the issue, the patient in many cases had other options, it wasn't a closed door for them.
I wanted him to serve out his sentence because he was flipping all of us off by his arrogance.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You didn't start a war, I was p*ssed off being invited to the movie opening as a joke.
I think the subject should be discussed but not without understanding what was and how it is now handled to prevent 'violations' of the law.
Even the show Mercy has something about the subject written into the script as a back story, which I think was to dovetail into the movie as part of the physiological promo junk.
I think the subject should be discussed but not without understanding what was and how it is now handled to prevent 'violations' of the law.
Even the show Mercy has something about the subject written into the script as a back story, which I think was to dovetail into the movie as part of the physiological promo junk.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yea but why?
If there is a real issue that needs to be discussed, it is the privacy between a doctor and the patient.
If you support how this is done for any reason, you also support government intervention between patient and doctor, no other way it can be done.
In the case of Jack, he did it because his sister was dying and he felt it was unfair. His sister wasn't offered any help in ending her life and the doctors didn't feel it was their place to provide the means to do so. Instead of finding another doctor or actually helping her (remember he had access to a lot of drugs), he choose to make a big deal about it and "bring this out of the shadows" as he put it.
This belonged in the shadows, it belongs hidden from sight not because there was a question of right or wrong, or one method of death over another but because the state, the government will become involved and 'regulate it' for the public's good which actually takes your right away of privacy.
The same holds true for electonic records and the new Obama care health plan. Forget privacy and confidentiality (beside forgetting about Health savings plans and a lot of other things), this is out the window with an intrusive government.
So a very good example is how drug companies are restricted through regulations. Say your company has a drug that can drug that reverses some forms of cancer. You have been asked to give the drug to someone who is entering stage 3 of a different form of cancer that is not indicated in your phase two studies because of the rarity. You have to tell them no because the FDA won't allow it unless you go through the entire process to show what the drug does with that type of cancer. The drug companies have their hands tied with this issue even though they could easily improve on the quality of life for so many and save some who have little hope.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I did not say secret, I said in the shadows. What I mean is that it is an option for terminally ill patients but that option is between the doctor and patient and only those two.
I don't want to see what's happening in europe, where uncle Hans goes into nursing care, his kids have medical power to make medical decisions and they decide because he has lived a full life it is time to pull the plug. State sponsored popuation and health care cost control.
Once we breached this, it messed things up for a lot of people.
I remember a geriatric doctor who was so livid over this issue that he wanted to see someone run Jack over with his VW bus. He had to stop treating his dying patients with morphine because the hospital didn't want to take a chance on an ODing patient which caused more pain and suffering.
I don't want to see what's happening in europe, where uncle Hans goes into nursing care, his kids have medical power to make medical decisions and they decide because he has lived a full life it is time to pull the plug. State sponsored popuation and health care cost control.
Once we breached this, it messed things up for a lot of people.
I remember a geriatric doctor who was so livid over this issue that he wanted to see someone run Jack over with his VW bus. He had to stop treating his dying patients with morphine because the hospital didn't want to take a chance on an ODing patient which caused more pain and suffering.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
You seem to be implying some things here that are difficult to grasp:
The following is a typical scenario:
A patient is terminally ill and is suffering daily, has no quality of life, and no chance of recovery.
The patient and Doctor come to an agreement that there are 3 options:
1) Continue treatment and prolong the suffering for an indefinite period of time.
2) Stop the treatment and let the patient pass away naturally and slowly. Sooner than in option 1 but still after suffering for a period of time.
3) Administer some type of procedure/drug that will expedite death and provide the least amount of suffering and also provide some choice over the when, how and where of the patient’s last moments.
Next
Step 1 - The patient and Doctor agree that option 3 is best.
Step 2 - The Doctor must decide what is allowable under the law.
Conclusion: The Doctor’s legal council quickly dismisses option 3 because it is illegal. The Doctor’s legal council also warns strongly against option 2 because the patient’s family may sue regardless of a proper living will. The Doctor decides that option 1 is the most prudent decision in order to guarantee the least amount of legal exposure for himself and to keep his career and reputation intact.
Are you implying that in the past this patient and Doctor (in private) could have come to an agreement that option 3 was best and then because this issue was “in the shadows” that there was some way that the Doctor could actually follow through with option 3?
And further, because this was in the “shadows” and the parties agreed in “private” then this would simply go on as unquestioned business as usual?
If this is what your implying:
It would still be illegal although in the shadows
The Doctor would still be liable
It would eventually come out of the shadows like any other misdeed
The privacy can be kept completely intact until the patient is deceased. Then it is only the Doctor left standing to defend a medical decision. That medical decision was never the patient’s to make.
This will always be a matter of law and always has been. The Government will always be involved and would (good or bad) have to dictate the manner in which any “right to die” legislation was carried out. This is already being done in Oregon and Yes, Of course the Government is mucking it up and making it near impossible to carry out. Such is our system.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Humble,
Seeing you are missing something here is what I mean.
In the medical profession outside the nurses, orderlies and candy strippers, a lot of the MEs and other people who were involved with post death issues didn't look at a death of a patient as a possible crime as many do now. When the doctor signed off a death certificate because the patient was under doctors care, it was taken at face value that the doctor did all they could do unless someone complained about it - which was rare.
Say option 3 was used, the doctor in the past would not have called up his lawyer or went off to a legal seminar to find out his boundaries in the legal world but rather served his/her patient. In other words they didn't have to worry about being charged with a crime or dealing with a review board for a decision they made with the patient's permission, but made a decision that was good for the patient.
The thing about being in the shadows is being twisted because I am using the wrong term but can't find one that fits. It is equal to some of the other things that are done outside what is considered normal practices as a doctor - one example is when a doctor hands a script to a patient for a drug that isn't meant for a specific issue or problem that the patient has but works anyway (example is Viagra being used for a cardiac patient in a post op condition). Doctors don't get to together and compare notes on how to end lives, they didn't have seminars or talks about it just like the drug issues I mentioned. Both are real things that happen every day and hidden but not completely hidden because of legalities or any ethical reasoning because of the patient, privacy and respect - in the shadows. (I know run on sentences.) The doctor's ethics come in to play on both issues, assisting someone to end their life because of a terminal illness can be construed as a bad thing, against their oath and so on but it is their judgment to either help the patient or not help them. This goes for the drug issue, which is worst ethically speaking because the damaging effects of the wrong drug, drug interactions can be construed as malpractice because the wrong drug was used.
IF you want another example, the drug rehabilitation program for doctors which is run by every state and which is done in the dark shadows, the general public doesn't know about this program, and doctors names are kept confidential BECAUSE of patient/doctor confidentiality (the doctor going through rehabilitation is the patient) then this issue should be also confidential.
Seeing you are missing something here is what I mean.
In the medical profession outside the nurses, orderlies and candy strippers, a lot of the MEs and other people who were involved with post death issues didn't look at a death of a patient as a possible crime as many do now. When the doctor signed off a death certificate because the patient was under doctors care, it was taken at face value that the doctor did all they could do unless someone complained about it - which was rare.
Say option 3 was used, the doctor in the past would not have called up his lawyer or went off to a legal seminar to find out his boundaries in the legal world but rather served his/her patient. In other words they didn't have to worry about being charged with a crime or dealing with a review board for a decision they made with the patient's permission, but made a decision that was good for the patient.
The thing about being in the shadows is being twisted because I am using the wrong term but can't find one that fits. It is equal to some of the other things that are done outside what is considered normal practices as a doctor - one example is when a doctor hands a script to a patient for a drug that isn't meant for a specific issue or problem that the patient has but works anyway (example is Viagra being used for a cardiac patient in a post op condition). Doctors don't get to together and compare notes on how to end lives, they didn't have seminars or talks about it just like the drug issues I mentioned. Both are real things that happen every day and hidden but not completely hidden because of legalities or any ethical reasoning because of the patient, privacy and respect - in the shadows. (I know run on sentences.) The doctor's ethics come in to play on both issues, assisting someone to end their life because of a terminal illness can be construed as a bad thing, against their oath and so on but it is their judgment to either help the patient or not help them. This goes for the drug issue, which is worst ethically speaking because the damaging effects of the wrong drug, drug interactions can be construed as malpractice because the wrong drug was used.
IF you want another example, the drug rehabilitation program for doctors which is run by every state and which is done in the dark shadows, the general public doesn't know about this program, and doctors names are kept confidential BECAUSE of patient/doctor confidentiality (the doctor going through rehabilitation is the patient) then this issue should be also confidential.
pelicn
Veteran Expediter
This issue hits very close to home since I lost my mother 3 weeks ago to Cancer. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 bone Cancer, had her right leg amputated due to blood clots, and was dead in a little over 2 weeks. There was no possibility for recovery, the cancer had already spread to every organ but yet they still removed her leg because they couldn't risk gangrene. She lasted less than a week after the amputation and was in excruciating pain. It wasn't until tests determined that her organs were shutting down (36 hrs before death) that they gave her enough medication to keep her completely sedated.
I don't believe in suicide, but I do believe that a patient and doctor should be able to make that decision without fear of arrest. Would my mother have made that decision? I can't say, but she wasn't given a choice.
I don't believe in suicide, but I do believe that a patient and doctor should be able to make that decision without fear of arrest. Would my mother have made that decision? I can't say, but she wasn't given a choice.
Just as we are now subject to government controlled health care we will soon live in a country/world with forced assisted suicide. It may not yet be law, but it will be. That, unfortunately, why I am opposed to making it legal.
If and only if you can get this oppressive government out of the health care business can we safely debate this subject.
These types of things are meant to be between a doctor and a patient only. They are private matters that the government has no business in what so ever, in any way shape or form.
The slide we have started down has been greased.
If and only if you can get this oppressive government out of the health care business can we safely debate this subject.
These types of things are meant to be between a doctor and a patient only. They are private matters that the government has no business in what so ever, in any way shape or form.
The slide we have started down has been greased.
The problem will all this mess is that, like most things that are problems, this one is mainly due to a lot of people who think they know best are sticking their noses into other people's business and trying to tell them what to do. If I want to die, I should be able to die. Period. And I should be able to do it alone or if I want or need assistance then with the assistance of any...one...I...choose... who is willing to assist me.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
H2D wrote:
Feed me "Kibble & bits, and throw me the bone from that T-bone steak you enjoy from time to time and i won't "P" on the carpet!!!
Feed me "Kibble & bits, and throw me the bone from that T-bone steak you enjoy from time to time and i won't "P" on the carpet!!!