Dr. Jack Kevorkian — embraced as a compassionate crusader and reviled as a murderous crank — died early this morning. Known as Dr. Death even before launching his fierce advocacy and practice of assisted suicides, Kevorkian, 83, died at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, where he had been hospitalized with kidney and heart problems.
His attorney, Mayer Morganroth, said it appears Kevorkian suffered a pulmonary thrombosis when a blood clot from his leg broke free and lodged in his heart. With Kevorkian was his niece Ava Janus and Morganroth. “It was peaceful, he didn’t feel a thing,” Morganroth said. Morganroth said there were no artificial attempts to keep Kevorkian alive and no plans for a memorial.
Kevorkian had recently been diagnosed with liver cancer, which may have been caused by hepatitis C, said his long-time friend Neal Nicol of Waterford. Kevorkian did not have symptoms for years from hepatitis C, Nicol said, but the virus can cause liver cancer and ultimately fatal complications, particularly in the elderly.
Love him or hate him, he opened a dialogue into “End of Life”. For that, we owe him.
Egotistical and pig headed, but a good man, who helped those when they needed it most. Fighting against a government who doesn’t want you to have control over your own body.
@#1,2 Since when was suicide criminal and prosecutable?
There is no dialogue about end of life. It is monologue (as long as you don’t have multiple personalities).
Government is not fighting to prevent your control over your body at death but prohibiting others to control it.
So, suicide is and always was fine. “Assisted suicide” is conflict in terms as much as dry water. Proper term for what Kevorkian supported is voluntary accepted murder. That is still killing of one by another, still murder and unacceptable.
They said he died from natural causes – but they’re going to make it look like a suicide.
He died doing what he loved… dying.
Ding, dong…
What goes around, comes around.
He will be missed. A renegade whose philosophy most people agreed with although fewer people admitted to it.
Meh.
#3 dusanmal
“So, suicide is and always was fine.”
I don’t think so. Most states I know of have some form of law that allows them to confine you if you “present a danger to yourself or others”.
but suicide helps the economy getting rid of non-productive elements of society.
It amuses me seeing people kept alive for no purpose in $20,000 month hospital beds for several months before they die being characterized as “fighters.” Fighters, maybe so, but they don’t care about who they are leaving behind–more poor with less options for no good reason at all.
Thinking people will kill themselves and get out of the way leaving that spot of sunshine for younger living things. Such thinking people need the knowledge, support, and tools of the medical profession and the permission of society to cast off worn out superstitious religious DOGMA.
Course, thats a problem with end of life decisions–often the critical thinking and key values of the person in question is GONE. So, decisions to control one’s life all the way to the end actually must come before the end is reached. How close is the need for expertise–not courage==but expertise.
Who here wants to live wasting away semi conscious for the last few months of their life? Anyone? Yes, I know, nearer to god than thee.
Silly Hoomans.
Suicide has never been illegal in the US. In other jurisdictions it was punished by forfeiture of property and estate. St Augustin started the Christian prohibition and this thinking has influenced western laws ever since, however most jurisdictions dropped the laws in the 60’s.
If assisted suicide is an issue for you (regardless of your position) then put personal directives into your will to guide your family and friends. Let’s be honest, anyone can successfully seek out support for assisted suicide when faced with a horrendous quality of life outlook. The only difference between Kevorkian and thousands of other health care providers is that he publicly talked about a very uncomfortable subject.
foobar–not “quite” true. Docs who are “agressive” in pain management always back off from what is truly needed because they can still be charged with murder by any activist co-professional with that axe to grind.
Ironic that by extending life we do it a disservice.
I didn’t say that assisting a suicide is legal. That of course is illegal.
I do not believe in assisted suicides, however, I do believe that a person has the right of when and how they want to die.
Well ray==the whole issue about end of life decisions is about those who want to die but can’t without the help of others==unless you think suicide should be a messy bloody painful affair.
What EXACTLY is the moral difference between solo suicide and assisted suicide besides the aesthetics mentioned above which really aren’t moral differences but think of the rights of the cleaning staff?
Remember–be exact.
#14 foobar, assisted suicide is legal in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
assisted sucide is reviled in the states as hospitals and nursing homes wont be able to get their hands on the decease’s estate. it has nothing to do with being illegal it does have to do with where the profits go.. and with the assisted suicide it wont be going to big business profits.
Kevorkian turned me negative on human euthanasia.
He was so creepy in that 60 Minutes episode about him that it put me off this for years.
But, my mind is not totally shut on the issue. I’m in one of the few states where it is legal and, I have to admit, it doesn’t seem like an abused thing.
>> Taxed Enough Already Dude said, on June 3rd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
>> Note progressives laud him…celebrate his philosophy of death…
I’m a liberal and my wife is practically a commie and we both don’t like human euthanasia.
Greg==letting emotional reactions to personalities sway him on another issue, even when his BRAIN is screaming at him to be rational.
Typical.
Goodnight funnyman.
I guess they’ll play the theme from MASH at his funeral?
#22 I don’t know Bobbo. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to judge a position by its primary advocates/supporters. It’s a start but should not be the end to examining an issue. No idea is so great that it can’t attract fuggheads.
To my eyes, Kevorkian falls into a group the media love – someone who seems eccentric, thus an easy target who is easily “discredited” (think Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich). This makes for great headlines or great sound bites in the 24-7 brain dead cable news arena. If the messenger can be defeated, so can his/her message (ad hominem attacks). As you are fond of saying “silly hoomans” indeed.
Whether he was right on this issue is debatable but Kevorkian didn’t do himself any favors with his fascination with photographing patient’s eyes at their moment of death or creating macabre paintings. Is it bigoted for one to judge him based on these things? Perhaps, but a person’s values and interests are a window into him and his thought process. Of course, I could be wrong…it’s been known to happen.
Perhaps he was a modern Prometheus, delivering light and a sense of control against our primal fear of death. I can see that side of things but I still don’t like the notion of suicide.
Angry–I assume you chose your nom de flame in purposeful recognition that by your pleasure and allowance it supercedes your intellect. Why even try to disagree with or parse what you say when you begin by admitting the difference between the idea itself, and those who may be attracted to it or otherwise profess adherence to it?
In fact, there are various names for the error depending on what’s being emphasized: The fallacy of appeal to authority, ab hominem attack, straw man issues are a few.
You know this all as well as I do.
Now the notion of “preferences” is always interesting. Anyone can choose anything they like for themselves. If you don’t like the notion of suicide, you are free to make those end of life decisions for yourself. But are you actually hinting that you are a Nazi and are actually saying that because you don’t like it, you would make it illegal for others who do? THAT is an entirely different question.
Positions against the free choice rationally made in favor of suicide are always religiously based==another form of coerced morals, which is not really morals at all, but, dare I say: slavery. Involuntary forced submission to someone else’s morality.
Never good.
I can’t think of a single reason against suicide. Do you have any beyond its a sin?
#26 Tis True Boobeaux…at the moment of choice we are alone. Cold comfort that, no?
#26 Does something need to be a sin to be undesirable? Answer me that sir. And don’t worry about cherry picking my points in my earlier post.
Some thangs confound silly hoomans.
Dems a Silly Puke in Libertardian’s clothing!
#28 Been there, done that. Most people over think it.
#27–Angry==you say: “#26 Tis True Boobeaux…at the moment of choice we are alone. Cold comfort that, no?” /// Has a nice poetic ring, but as with just about everything we think and feel about: its definitional? Are we “ever alone?” And if so, it would certainly be a matter of choice? Hence, attended or assisted suicide. I’ve seen some films with family around the bed. Nice good byes and what not. I can imagine being in a crowd and dying alone as well. And being a pragmatic libertarian Existentialist, what difference does it make one way or the other?
#28–Angry==you say: “#26 Does something need to be a sin to be undesirable? Answer me that sir.” As the evangelical anti-theist, I don’t accept the validity/posit of “sin” per se so by definition, your question is irrelevant. Ironically, I find most of the sins to be highly desired by man, thats why they are sins. Heh, heh.
Hey–you didn’t answer any of my questions. Not unusual. Silly indeed.
Pres Obama said we are wasting money on the last months of life. He needs more Dr Kevorkians to get his budgets to come in line with projections.
Damn, Dallas and I had just made an appointment for Pedro too.