Thread: Dear friend, i am a "Kavorkian"

If you are going to be a veggy for the rest of your life, just end it now. It is your life, it is your choice.

I Agree with you guys also, sometimes theres no other choice.

Although I wouldn't mind being doped up for a while on morphine before that day ever came lol

I take it this is about euthanasia and assisted suicide? I have not read much about Dr. Kevorkian. I also take it this is a for/against assisted suicide discussion?

Well, if so...

I will avoid personal bias, so I will just get my opinion out of the way that while I am against assisted suicide personally, but I am also against forceful medical treatment, for example a person being kept alive at whatever cost, including the cost of their quality of life - especially if that life is limited, and there is no way they will recover. Medical extremism is what I oppose. However, that is a purely biased personal opinion and I would never expect another person to have to agree.

From a more objective standpoint (or at least, hopefully more objective, call me out if I'm not)...

One thing that comes to mind is how some patients will now always say what they really mean in the heat of the moment. Is the person under the influence of drugs (prescribed or not)? Are they clear of their situation or their surroundings? Do they know where they are or what has happened to them? Are they suffering from any mental disorders that make it difficult to tell if the patient really means what they are asking?

It would obviously be difficult for any medical practitioner to comply with a patient's request when the patient is not in their normal mind. At the same time, they could really mean what they are asking so it's a tricky one. I wouldn't blame a doctor for not wanting to comply in such an event even if it were legal.

But if, say they were in their right, clear mind, or had requested in writing beforehand (e.g. in a will) that they would like medical treatment to cease in _______ situation or to be euthanized in _______ situation, that sounds fine to me personally, but then I can think of some other things to consider...

The value of human life. Would human life be devalued by this more than it is now, if it was "okay" to kill someone or allow them to die even if under very very special circumstances, or would it enhance the value of human life in regards to respecting the wishes of others and not infringe upon what they want to do with their life?

Forged wills - they do happen, and it would be the ideal means of killing someone you don't like a little sooner than they would normally die without actually killing them. What measures could be taken to prevent this?

What are the limits of one's right to die? What if someone requests to die but they have even a small chance of recovery? Or requests to not be treated or to be euthanized for something relatively mundane by modern medical standards, but could be lethal without treatment? What if someone requests to die even though their physical capabilities will be reasonably intact, but they will be permanently disfigured? What if some people push for euthanasia from mental disorders (e.g. depression) claiming they have absolutely no quality of life? What if they use an existing terminal illness that they already have as an excuse for suicide, rather than a reason?

There would obviously have to be limits placed to prevent this, certain qualifiers that people would have to have, but people on the fringes of those limits would be crying out in protest because they only just "don't qualify" for euthanasia and are institutionalized "for their safety" when they try to refuse treatment or food or water. I can imagine human rights protesters calling for a broader spectrum of considerations so more people can be allowed to choose euthanasia. If such protests were to come into fruition, where would it stop?

Rather than arguments, I see these points as "problems" to consider. I very much support the choice for someone to do with their life as they wish, even die, though I can't shake off these problems from my mind.

To keep it short and simple, I believe in the right to die.

Originally Posted by Amoeba

Spoiler for Amoeba's post collapsed:

I take it this is about euthanasia and assisted suicide? I have not read much about Dr. Kevorkian. I also take it this is a for/against assisted suicide discussion?

Well, if so...

I will avoid personal bias, so I will just get my opinion out of the way that while I am against assisted suicide personally, but I am also against forceful medical treatment, for example a person being kept alive at whatever cost, including the cost of their quality of life - especially if that life is limited, and there is no way they will recover. Medical extremism is what I oppose. However, that is a purely biased personal opinion and I would never expect another person to have to agree.

From a more objective standpoint (or at least, hopefully more objective, call me out if I'm not)...

One thing that comes to mind is how some patients will now always say what they really mean in the heat of the moment. Is the person under the influence of drugs (prescribed or not)? Are they clear of their situation or their surroundings? Do they know where they are or what has happened to them? Are they suffering from any mental disorders that make it difficult to tell if the patient really means what they are asking?

It would obviously be difficult for any medical practitioner to comply with a patient's request when the patient is not in their normal mind. At the same time, they could really mean what they are asking so it's a tricky one. I wouldn't blame a doctor for not wanting to comply in such an event even if it were legal.

But if, say they were in their right, clear mind, or had requested in writing beforehand (e.g. in a will) that they would like medical treatment to cease in _______ situation or to be euthanized in _______ situation, that sounds fine to me personally, but then I can think of some other things to consider...

The value of human life. Would human life be devalued by this more than it is now, if it was "okay" to kill someone or allow them to die even if under very very special circumstances, or would it enhance the value of human life in regards to respecting the wishes of others and not infringe upon what they want to do with their life?

Forged wills - they do happen, and it would be the ideal means of killing someone you don't like a little sooner than they would normally die without actually killing them. What measures could be taken to prevent this?

What are the limits of one's right to die? What if someone requests to die but they have even a small chance of recovery? Or requests to not be treated or to be euthanized for something relatively mundane by modern medical standards, but could be lethal without treatment? What if someone requests to die even though their physical capabilities will be reasonably intact, but they will be permanently disfigured? What if some people push for euthanasia from mental disorders (e.g. depression) claiming they have absolutely no quality of life? What if they use an existing terminal illness that they already have as an excuse for suicide, rather than a reason?

There would obviously have to be limits placed to prevent this, certain qualifiers that people would have to have, but people on the fringes of those limits would be crying out in protest because they only just "don't qualify" for euthanasia and are institutionalized "for their safety" when they try to refuse treatment or food or water. I can imagine human rights protesters calling for a broader spectrum of considerations so more people can be allowed to choose euthanasia. If such protests were to come into fruition, where would it stop?

Rather than arguments, I see these points as "problems" to consider. I very much support the choice for someone to do with their life as they wish, even die, though I can't shake off these problems from my mind.

Correct on the assumption of the thread topic, though geared more towards Dr. Jack Kavorkian's point of view.

Those are all great points, and they become solved if this is undertaken in the manner that Dr. Jack Kavorkian did. He didn't take patients with documents saying it or other people. He only took patients that could soundly communicate to him their interest in it while not under any altered state of mind. He made sure they were not on any drugs that could place them in depressive states or any other altered/drugged state of mind.

Most of his patients were cancer patients seeking relief from the treatment that was causing more damage than it was worth.

He usually became close to his patients in a way most doctors never get to with their patients. He made sure they were absolutely certain this was the route they wanted to take, in most cases he would recommend against his work and that the patients just give their treatment time, or that others (like the paralyzed father he put under by request) seek professional psychiatric therapy to try to find out if this was something they truly wanted to undertake (no pun intended).

I believe in the right to choose what happens to our own bodies and life, so yeah I guess I'm a Kavorkian too.

I understand this viewpoint, but doctors shouldn't be the ones to do it.

Originally Posted by spockman

I understand this viewpoint, but doctors shouldn't be the ones to do it.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying that other licensed professionals should administer the procedure, or that the patients should do it themselves?

I should have mentioned this previously, but I support a patient's right to die.

Ideally, a patient should perform the act, (although a licensed professional would have to prepare it so that the patient couldn't fail.) The right to die is well and good, but the right to have someone else kill you? I don't think anyone should be responsible for that. No matter how justifiable, it would weigh heavy on the mercy killers if there was a new job created to kill people who are suffering. (Look at how delicately the death penalty operators are handled even if the administrator is a firm believer in capital punishment.)

And however it is done, a doctor should not be involved. The hypocratic oath serves a noble purpose and shouldn't be screwed with.

I guess I have no choice but to be for it, to honor my uncles wishes. The doctors told him they could hook him up to machines, keep him alive for months. He summoned all his family to his bed side to tell them that he decided, that his time was now. He said his goodbyes and died. Many people are never given that moment.

Originally Posted by spockman

Ideally, a patient should perform the act, (although a licensed professional would have to prepare it so that the patient couldn't fail.) The right to die is well and good, but the right to have someone else kill you? I don't think anyone should be responsible for that. No matter how justifiable, it would weigh heavy on the mercy killers if there was a new job created to kill people who are suffering. (Look at how delicately the death penalty operators are handled even if the administrator is a firm believer in capital punishment.)

And however it is done, a doctor should not be involved. The hypocratic oath serves a noble purpose and shouldn't be screwed with.

I apologize but what the hell?

What do you mean a doctor shouldn't be the one to do it?
Who else should? Your wife? Your Kids? Family at all?
Maybe a Lawyer, or some random cop?

OR... How about a person you trust to keep you healthy and well during life. Why shouldn't Doctors be the ones to help you make the transition into death? A licensed doctor who knows what they're doing is the ONLY person i would trust to help me with this....

You're post made no sense, yes a patient should... but what if they can't??
What if they're paralyzed? Who then?
Their Doctor.

and i'm sorry but the Hippocratic Oath is already ruined by doctors in modern western society, they're afraid to do the right thing in medicine because they might be sued, or they wont because it goes against they're personal or societal morals...

Medicine is about healing without bias, it's about doing what's right on the part of the patient and not by any other third party...

Originally Posted by spockman

Ideally, a patient should perform the act, (although a licensed professional would have to prepare it so that the patient couldn't fail.) The right to die is well and good, but the right to have someone else kill you?

That's pretty much how the process went, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatron#Thanatron

I've always been on Kavorkian's side.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I apologize but what the hell?

What do you mean a doctor shouldn't be the one to do it?
Who else should? Your wife? Your Kids? Family at all?
Maybe a Lawyer, or some random cop?

OR... How about a person you trust to keep you healthy and well during life. Why shouldn't Doctors be the ones to help you make the transition into death? A licensed doctor who knows what they're doing is the ONLY person i would trust to help me with this....

You're post made no sense, yes a patient should... but what if they can't??
What if they're paralyzed? Who then?
Their Doctor.

and i'm sorry but the Hippocratic Oath is already ruined by doctors in modern western society, they're afraid to do the right thing in medicine because they might be sued, or they wont because it goes against they're personal or societal morals...

Medicine is about healing without bias, it's about doing what's right on the part of the patient and not by any other third party...

If the patient is incapable of doing the deed it shouldn't be a doctor or someone who has sworn not to use their medical knowledge to harm their patients. There is a reason the oath exists and whether or not it has not been a perfect guardian of Western medicine it should stick around.

What do you mean a doctor is the only one you would trust to kill you? It would require limited training to off someone. I highly doubt you need 8-12 years of preperation before you are knowledgable enough to end someone's life painlessly.

EDIT: That's very interesting how he did it, Catbus.

I think that the double-standard is ironic how if an animal is suffering needlessly it is actually the "good thing" to do to kill the animal, but for a person the "good thing" to do is to keep them living indefinitely, with no hope for recovery, with no quality of life, even against their wishes. What if we did that to our pets, or our livestock?
And I don't understand why suicide is such a sin, or taboo. That is what it is, a cultural taboo, not based on logic or rationality. It is illegal! So if someone attempts suicide and fails then they get arrested and are in legal trouble on top of whatever troubles they had originally.
If I ever decide to kill myself the last thing I will worry about is that it is illegal. I am all for Kevorkian also.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I think that the double-standard is ironic how if an animal is suffering needlessly it is actually the "good thing" to do to kill the animal, but for a person the "good thing" to do is to keep them living indefinitely, with no hope for recovery, with no quality of life, even against their wishes. What if we did that to our pets, or our livestock?
And I don't understand why suicide is such a sin, or taboo. That is what it is, a cultural taboo, not based on logic or rationality. It is illegal! So if someone attempts suicide and fails then they get arrested and are in legal trouble on top of whatever troubles they had originally.
If I ever decide to kill myself the last thing I will worry about is that it is illegal. I am all for Kevorkian also.

I don't think it is just a cultural taboo. Because a lot of the time, suicide isn't a rational process where the person weighs the pros and cons of being alive. They could be in a terrible state that is temporary or be suffering from treatable depression or have some other chemical screw up in their brain that is messing with them. We should, as a society, do what we can to help the people who have attempted suicide. I know that rarely are people criminally prosecuted for suicide where I live.

I agree there is a double standard when it comes to non-curable ailments, though.

Originally Posted by spockman

I don't think it is just a cultural taboo. Because a lot of the time, suicide isn't a rational process where the person weighs the pros and cons of being alive. They could be in a terrible state that is temporary or be suffering from treatable depression or have some other chemical screw up in their brain that is messing with them. We should, as a society, do what we can to help the people who have attempted suicide. I know that rarely are people criminally prosecuted for suicide where I live.

I agree there is a double standard when it comes to non-curable ailments, though.

All very good points but they're IRRELEVANT to this thread. Stay on topic.

We're not talking about people with temporary ailments or with chemical imbalances in their brains....

We're talking if YOU were to be paralyzed for LIFE, couldn't do anything but blink and barely speak, and you decided you couldn't stand the lack of quality of living you're subject to. YOU decide that you no longer want to be subject to this torture that is your life and want to move past this life into death which is you're only escape from it.

Would you want that freedom?

^ That's what we're talking about, stop with the straw man argument, please.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

All very good points but they're IRRELEVANT to this thread. Stay on topic.

We're not talking about people with temporary ailments or with chemical imbalances in their brains....

We're talking if YOU were to be paralyzed for LIFE, couldn't do anything but blink and barely speak, and you decided you couldn't stand the lack of quality of living you're subject to. YOU decide that you no longer want to be subject to this torture that is your life and want to move past this life into death which is you're only escape from it.

Would you want that freedom?

^ That's what we're talking about, stop with the straw man argument, please.

I apologize if I went off topic and was misunderstood. But I wasn't arguing suicide as a counter-argument for Kavorkianism. I was just telling Dannon why I disagreed with him on the suicide point. I actually agree with you on this issue, MM, for the most part. I just think that if it was implemented we would have to be very delicate on how.

Thank you for clarifying and condensing that. I apologize if i came off mean.

When i use caps on certain words it's to make them most noticed in the post, and not to express an exclamation of them.

I agree with you as well, we would need to monitor such a thing closely so that no patient/doctor was taken advantage of in this situation.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

Thank you for clarifying and condensing that. I apologize if i came off mean.

When i use caps on certain words it's to make them most noticed in the post, and not to express an exclamation of them.

I agree with you as well, we would need to monitor such a thing closely so that no patient/doctor was taken advantage of in this situation.

That's alright, MM. It is very easy to come off in a way as unintended on the internet. I gave it the benefit of the doubt. ( :

Safeguards to keep it moral, I think, would have to include a psychological evaluation to show that the person is sound of mind, a doctor clarifying that the victims chance of recovery is very low or impossible, an appropriate amount of time between the decision and the act, of course thorough documentation, and as much of a distance from the act of mercy killing as possible for the Doctor, (or anyone else- if reasonable.)

I think most people would agree with most of those.

I never heard of dr. kavorkian, but I'm 100% in favor of euthanasia, luckily it's allowed here(but with conditions, a former neighboor of my uncle was also chronicly ill and wanted to end his life, but had to eventually resort to suicide so he collected all his medicins for a while and took them all together one night, he succeeeded but I think it would've been much better if he was just allowed and a doctor would've done it for him, like with my grandfather who died from euthanasia when I was 3 because he had cancer and couldn't be cured anymore)