Kevorkian vows to fight for legal assisted suicide


By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. — For nearly a decade, Dr. Jack Kevorkian waged a defiant campaign to help other people kill themselves.

The retired pathologist left bodies at hospital emergency rooms and motels and videotaped a death that was broadcast on CBS' 60 Minutes. His actions prompted battles over assisted suicide in many states.

But as he prepares to leave prison June 1 after serving more than eight years of a 10- to 25-year sentence in the death of a Michigan man, Kevorkian will find that only one state has a physician-assisted suicide law — Oregon.

Experts say that's because abortion opponents, Catholic leaders, advocates for the disabled and often doctors have fought the efforts of other states to follow the lead of Oregon, where the law took effect in late 1997.

Opponents defeated a measure in Vermont this year, and are fighting similar efforts in California. Bills have failed in recent years in Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington state, and ballot measures were defeated earlier by voters in Washington, California, Michigan and Maine.

Kevorkian's release could spur another round of efforts, if only to prevent anyone else from following his example.

"One of the driving forces of the (Oregon) law was to prevent the Jack Kevorkians from happening," said Kate Davenport, communications specialist at the Death with Dignity National Center in Portland, Ore., which defended Oregon's law against challenges.

"It wasn't well-regulated or sane," she sid. "There were just too many potential pitfalls."

Kevorkian, 79, was criticized even by assisted suicide supporters because of his unconventional practices.

He used a machine he'd invented to administer fatal drugs and dropped off bodies at hospital emergency rooms or coroner's offices, or left them to be discovered in the motel rooms where he often met those who wanted his help.

At the time, some doctors didn't want to give dying patients too much pain medication, fearing they'd be accused of hastening death.

Oregon's experience shows that only a tiny percentage of people will ever choose to quicken their death, said Sidney Wanzer, a retired Massachusetts doctor who has been a leader in the right-to-die movement.

Oregon law allows only terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer the medication to ask a physician to prescribe life-ending drugs, and they must make that request once in writing and twice orally.

From the time the state law took effect in 1997 until the end of last year, 292 people asked their doctors to prescribe the drugs they would need to end their lives, an average of just over 30 a year.

Most of the 46 people who used the process last year had cancer, and their median age was 74, according to a state report.

Experts say, however, that the attention on assisted suicide has helped raise awareness about end-of-life care.

"End-of-life care has increased dramatically" in Oregon with more hospice referrals and better pain management, says Valerie Vollmar, a professor at Oregon's Willamette University College of Law who writes extensively on physician-assisted death.

Both opponents and supporters of physician-assisted death say more needs to be done to offer hospice care and pain treatment for those who are dying and suffering from debilitating pain.

"The solution here is not to kill people who are getting inadequate pain management, but to remove barriers to adequate pain management," said Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes assisted suicide.

"We need to come up with better solutions to human suffering and human need," Balch said.

More end-of-life care is needed, but doctors should have a right to assist those who ask for their help in dying, Wanzer said.

"There are a handful of patients who have the best of care, everything has been done right, but they still suffer. And it's this person I think should have the right to say, 'This is not working and I want to die sooner,' " Wanzer said.

Kevorkian has promised he'll never again advise or counsel anyone about assisted suicide once he's out of prison. But his attorney, Mayer Morganroth, said Kevorkian isn't going to stop pushing for more laws allowing it.

The state wants to go after money that Kevorkian makes following his release to help cover the cost of his incarceration. Morganroth has said his client has been offered as much as $100,000 to speak.

"It's got to be legalized," he said in a phone interview from prison aired by a Detroit TV station on Monday. "I'll work to have it legalized. But I won't break any laws doing it."

:o

I dunno where I stand on this one... I know that when my siamese was 18 years old, and sick and in pain.. It was really sad to watch her suffer..

I'm not sure about this either. But, something to think about is that the one of the most common questions asked when someone dies is whether the person felt any pain. So, I dunno.

Well I think if abortions are legal, assisted suicides should be as well. I really don't see much of a difference between the two except age. :shrug

I really don't think that it should be legalized. If we legalize it for doctors, I can see family members, friends etc. deciding to help end lives also. It's just a can of worms that really should not be opened. Something about mercy killings rub me the wrong way...

I really don't think that it should be legalized. If we legalize it for doctors, I can see family members, friends etc. deciding to help end lives also. It's just a can of worms that really should not be opened. Something about mercy killings rub me the wrong way...

Yea, I'm kinda thinking the same thing.. what would this do to life insurance policies? Is there a different payout for suicide vs. terminal illnesses? the legalities just seem like there would be never ending red tape...

I just don't think it's for us to decide when a life ends. I feel it's in God's hands. Even if pain and suffering are involved he always has a reason.

I think that if we have freedom in this country, then the freedom to decide when to end your own life should be included in that. If someone believes that God should be the only one to decide when life ends, then they don't have to kill themselves, but legally speaking it shouldn't matter what anyone's God says. We do have a first amendment that calls for "no laws respecting an establishment of religion". I think it is cruel to expect someone to die a slow painful death if they want to end it and want someone to help them because they are too sick or weak to do it themselves (which is the kind of people Kevorkian is talking about). The legal issues could be easily solved if they require anyone asking someone else to help them die to go through some simple steps... require the suicide to be assisted by a licensed physician, videotape their statement affirming it, sign legal papers with witnesses, and file them before the suicide happens. Insurance companies should be told how to behave in these instances by the law, not the other way around.

JMHO. :P

I agree with the PP.

If I am dying with cancer or something else that can = a drawn out painful death then I should have the right to dye with dignity. BEFORE I start being incoherent with pain. If you have ever heard a cancer patient screaming in pain, yet unable to have any more morphine because they have had all they can have for that block of time it might change your mind. The pain changes the person, they become angry and say awful things, or they do not remember who you are or they are just lying there sobbing. it is awful to watch to see some one you love so much in such pain and confusion.

I am sorry I myself do not want to ever put not only myself through that but my husband, children, and family as well.

If I can help my beloved pets to leave this world with peace and dignity humans should have that same right as well.

I agree with the PP.

If I am dying with cancer or something else that can = a drawn out painful death then I should have the right to dye with dignity. BEFORE I start being incoherent with pain. If you have ever heard a cancer patient screaming in pain, yet unable to have any more morphine because they have had all they can have for that block of time it might change your mind. The pain changes the person, they become angry and say awful things, or they do not remember who you are or they are just lying there sobbing. it is awful to watch to see some one you love so much in such pain and confusion.

I am sorry I myself do not want to ever put not only myself through that but my husband, children, and family as well.

If I can help my beloved pets to leave this world with peace and dignity humans should have that same right as well.

I think that if we have freedom in this country, then the freedom to decide when to end your own life should be included in that. If someone believes that God should be the only one to decide when life ends, then they don't have to kill themselves, but legally speaking it shouldn't matter what anyone's God says. We do have a first amendment that calls for "no laws respecting an establishment of religion". I think it is cruel to expect someone to die a slow painful death if they want to end it and want someone to help them because they are too sick or weak to do it themselves (which is the kind of people Kevorkian is talking about). The legal issues could be easily solved if they require anyone asking someone else to help them die to go through some simple steps... require the suicide to be assisted by a licensed physician, videotape their statement affirming it, sign legal papers with witnesses, and file them before the suicide happens. Insurance companies should be told how to behave in these instances by the law, not the other way around.

JMHO. :P

people should be allowed to kill themselves but not have someone else do it for them or facilitate that. that's wrong imo.

people should be allowed to kill themselves but not have someone else do it for them or facilitate that. that's wrong imo.

The reason for the help is so that you can go easily VS shooting yourself in the head, or hanging yourself etc. If a DR can facilitate for you it can insure that you pass on in a dignified way pain free and that you don't further traumatize the loved ones you are leaving behind by them finding you. If they KNOW what is going on and you have DR help it is a dignified death.

i don't think it's right for someone to drug someone if htey want to die.

Even if the other person wants it? Really? Why not? Because of your religious beliefs? Because you could never imagine yourself doing it? I don't understand why it's okay for someone to kill themselves but not have someone else help them if the other person is willing to do it, especially in cases where the person is ending their life to avoid living the rest of it in extreme pain. Most people like that can't kill themslves because they are too weak or sick to do it.

Even if the other person wants it? Really? Why not? Because of your religious beliefs? Because you could never imagine yourself doing it? I don't understand why it's okay for someone to kill themselves but not have someone else help them if the other person is willing to do it, especially in cases where the person is ending their life to avoid living the rest of it in extreme pain. Most people like that can't kill themslves because they are too weak or sick to do it.

1. yes because of how i was raised and 2. i don't think it's okay for anyone to take their life, i see it as selfish. i also couldn't ever see myself doing it. my great-grandma (my grandma's mom) suffered from severe emphasema (sp?), she had cancer and complete lack of bowel and bladder control but she chose to live out her days as best as she could. i understand that if they want to end their life that they could be to weak but i still don't think it's right. jmo. plus i do believe that miracles can happen. what if they find a radical new cure for them to try and it could work for them but they've already killed themselves? anything can happen.

1. yes because of how i was raised and 2. i don't think it's okay for anyone to take their life, i see it as selfish. i also couldn't ever see myself doing it. my great-grandma (my grandma's mom) suffered from severe emphasema (sp?), she had cancer and complete lack of bowel and bladder control but she chose to live out her days as best as she could. i understand that if they want to end their life that they could be to weak but i still don't think it's right. jmo. plus i do believe that miracles can happen. what if they find a radical new cure for them to try and it could work for them but they've already killed themselves? anything can happen.

:yes
I agree. Even if someone wants it, it is not our job to take someones life in our own hands.

:yes
I agree. Even if someone wants it, it is not our job to take someones life in our own hands.

Well, making it legal isn't going to force anyone to assist in a suicide, so I don't understand why that would be a reason not to legalize it. Doctors take other people's lives in their hands all the time, should that be illegal too?

1. yes because of how i was raised and 2. i don't think it's okay for anyone to take their life, i see it as selfish. i also couldn't ever see myself doing it. my great-grandma (my grandma's mom) suffered from severe emphasema (sp?), she had cancer and complete lack of bowel and bladder control but she chose to live out her days as best as she could. i understand that if they want to end their life that they could be to weak but i still don't think it's right. jmo. plus i do believe that miracles can happen. what if they find a radical new cure for them to try and it could work for them but they've already killed themselves? anything can happen.

Okay, I understand where you are coming from, and those are all good reasons for not doing it yourself and encouraging other people not to do it, but are those good enough reasons to make it illegal? Shouldn't everyone be able to make those decisions for themselves? Making it illegal for people to decide when their own lives end and how (and who) is involved in that because someone else sees it as selfish or wasn't raised to think that is okay, or because someone they knew didn't do it when they were sick, isn't a good enough LEGAL reason to stop someone from making that decision for themselves. Where is the humanity in forcing someone to suffer because a miracle may or may not happen somewhere down the road if they don't want to wait for that to happen? Not everyone who commits suicide is selfish. There are terminally ill people who don't want to DIE, they just don't want to suffer or put their families through it all anymore. We will put dogs down if they are sick and seem to be suffering even though we have no way to ask them what they want, but if a person is suffering and wants to die no one is allowed to help them? They have to do it themselves and inflict every more pain on themselves and put their families through seeing the physical effects of self inflicted suicide? Where is the humanity in that?

i just feel it is wrong.

Well, making it legal isn't going to force anyone to assist in a suicide, so I don't understand why that would be a reason not to legalize it. Doctors take other people's lives in their hands all the time, should that be illegal too?



Okay, I understand where you are coming from, and those are all good reasons for not doing it yourself and encouraging other people not to do it, but are those good enough reasons to make it illegal? Shouldn't everyone be able to make those decisions for themselves? Making it illegal for people to decide when their own lives end and how (and who) is involved in that because someone else sees it as selfish or wasn't raised to think that is okay, or because someone they knew didn't do it when they were sick, isn't a good enough LEGAL reason to stop someone from making that decision for themselves. Where is the humanity in forcing someone to suffer because a miracle may or may not happen somewhere down the road if they don't want to wait for that to happen? Not everyone who commits suicide is selfish. There are terminally ill people who don't want to DIE, they just don't want to suffer or put their families through it all anymore. We will put dogs down if they are sick and seem to be suffering even though we have no way to ask them what they want, but if a person is suffering and wants to die no one is allowed to help them? They have to do it themselves and inflict every more pain on themselves and put their families through seeing the physical effects of self inflicted suicide? Where is the humanity in that?

That is how I feel about it completely.

I can't imagine allowing a loved one to sit and live in pain or in a drug induced fog b/c it "wasn't right for them to die" Everyone who thinks it's up to god needs to realize that YEARS ago that might have been a true statement. But we have so many medications and so many things we can do that to help keep a person alive even when it's long past them actually wanting to be alive. If people just got sick and we had to fight it out minus all the fancy medication we had today then we would all die alot earlier.

Well Doctors take an oath to "Do no harm" and at what point do you consider the continued treatment of a terminal patient to become more harmful than helpful? I consider it to be the point where suffering and anguish of a long, drawn out death makes the patient wish for death, crave it, beg for it, relish the thought of it.

In days long passed, the native americans would say goodbye to their elders as the elder walked into the desert, never again to return. Between that kind of death, vs. a death that comes more quietly and is morphine-assisted so as to feel no pain in the end, which was more humane? Wouldn't it be considered torture to keep someone alive past the point where they wanted to be with tubes and meds and whatever else when they are crying and screaming and begging for it to end?

Well, making it legal isn't going to force anyone to assist in a suicide, so I don't understand why that would be a reason not to legalize it. Doctors take other people's lives in their hands all the time, should that be illegal too?



Okay, I understand where you are coming from, and those are all good reasons for not doing it yourself and encouraging other people not to do it, but are those good enough reasons to make it illegal? Shouldn't everyone be able to make those decisions for themselves? Making it illegal for people to decide when their own lives end and how (and who) is involved in that because someone else sees it as selfish or wasn't raised to think that is okay, or because someone they knew didn't do it when they were sick, isn't a good enough LEGAL reason to stop someone from making that decision for themselves. Where is the humanity in forcing someone to suffer because a miracle may or may not happen somewhere down the road if they don't want to wait for that to happen? Not everyone who commits suicide is selfish. There are terminally ill people who don't want to DIE, they just don't want to suffer or put their families through it all anymore. We will put dogs down if they are sick and seem to be suffering even though we have no way to ask them what they want, but if a person is suffering and wants to die no one is allowed to help them? They have to do it themselves and inflict every more pain on themselves and put their families through seeing the physical effects of self inflicted suicide? Where is the humanity in that?

I didn't mean just assisted. I don't think a person has the right to take their own life. I just think it's wrong.

Are you against the death penalty too? Just wondering...

Are you against the death penalty too? Just wondering...

see i'm for the death penalty because they gave away their right to get good "treatment" when the murdered someone in such a heinous way.

see i'm for the death penalty because they gave away their right to get good "treatment" when the murdered someone in such a heinous way.

See that doesn't make sense to me, it is OK to let a murder die in comfort and peace but not a terminally ill loved one? Why are not loved ones given even more humane treatment then a murderer?

I am against the death penalty because I don't think they should have it so easy. I would rather they live in jail for life then get to have the dignity and comfortable death of the death penalty. The ones they murdered did not get that humane treatment.

I understand the need for justice and punishment and all. People should NOT get away with crimes that hurt other people, period. I just don't get why one group of people fall into the "man decides when they die" category and other people fall into the "God decides when they die" category. Death is death right... shouldn't it be universal? If God has a rule that says no one should kill anyone else (Thou shalt not Kill, right?), does it matter who that someone else is? I don't get the difference, I guess. Maybe that is why I am not religious. LOL.

See that doesn't make sense to me, it is OK to let a murder die in comfort and peace but not a terminally ill loved one? Why are not loved ones given even more humane treatment then a murderer?

I am against the death penalty because I don't think they should have it so easy. I would rather they live in jail for life then get to have the dignity and comfortable death of the death penalty. The ones they murdered did not get that humane treatment.

oh i don't think lethal injection is a suitable method of the death penalty.

see i'm for the death penalty because they gave away their right to get good "treatment" when the murdered someone in such a heinous way.

:yes

See that doesn't make sense to me, it is OK to let a murder die in comfort and peace but not a terminally ill loved one? Why are not loved ones given even more humane treatment then a murderer?


Excellent point. It is interesting to me when people want to pick and choose the situations in which "playing God" are acceptable or unacceptable.
I, personally, support making the process available for those with terminal illness to opt for a humane death. With living will/medical directives they have the ability to opt out of certain life sustaining treatments but that is not the same as being able to choose a peaceful/comfortable passing. For example, you can opt to refuse hydration and nutrition - which leaves you to die of starvation or dehydration. Neither are really pleasant ways to pass unless you happen to be "lucky" enough to be so advanced in whatever disease you are suffering from that you are comatose and/or unaware once it gets to that point.
I think it is sad that when a pet has reached the point where their quality of life has so diminished that we see the only humane thing to do is allow them to pass over we have the means to do so but not for those we love most dearly.
I have watched someone very near and dear to me die a long and, at the end, horrible death. We did everything legally possible to assure the passing was not any harder than it had to be (imagine sitting at 17 and helping your father complete medical directives) but it seemed so contrary because what we were doing was, in many ways, going to make the passing harder by virtue of excluding those things that may have brought temporary comfort but only extended the suffering overall.
I'm not advocating running about willy-nilly euthanizing people but I do believe it needs to be an option available to those who desire to pass with dignity.

I just feel when a person commits such a sick crime like murder they loose any right they may have. I think it's compairing apples and oranges. JMO

It doesn't seem to be about the person dyings rights though. It seems to be about everyone else's rights. Neither the murder or the cancer patient have the right to decide when they die. Everyone but them seems to have the right to decide when they die (or don't die) instead.

Excellent point. It is interesting to me when people want to pick and choose the situations in which "playing God" are acceptable or unacceptable.
I, personally, support making the process available for those with terminal illness to opt for a humane death. With living will/medical directives they have the ability to opt out of certain life sustaining treatments but that is not the same as being able to choose a peaceful/comfortable passing. For example, you can opt to refuse hydration and nutrition - which leaves you to die of starvation or dehydration. Neither are really pleasant ways to pass unless you happen to be "lucky" enough to be so advanced in whatever disease you are suffering from that you are comatose and/or unaware once it gets to that point.
I think it is sad that when a pet has reached the point where their quality of life has so diminished that we see the only humane thing to do is allow them to pass over we have the means to do so but not for those we love most dearly.
I have watched someone very near and dear to me die a long and, at the end, horrible death. We did everything legally possible to assure the passing was not any harder than it had to be (imagine sitting at 17 and helping your father complete medical directives) but it seemed so contrary because what we were doing was, in many ways, going to make the passing harder by virtue of excluding those things that may have brought temporary comfort but only extended the suffering overall.
I'm not advocating running about willy-nilly euthanizing people but I do believe it needs to be an option available to those who desire to pass with dignity.

ITA!!

I didn't read all the posts made so far so this might have been brought up. But why is it that we can take our pet to the vet to be put down so that it won't suffer (after all that would be inhumane) but we cannot offer the same to a person that is suffering and has no way of ever being better again?