Jack Kevorkian

“Dr. Death” Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as “Dr. Death” since at least 1956, when he conducted a study photographing patients’ eyes as they died. Results established that blood vessels in the cornea contract and become invisible as the heart stops beating. And he made a lot of other ways to make people like handicapped or anyone who suffer from anything in his life to kill himself, he claims to have assisted at least 130 patients to that end, and he famously said that “dying is not a crime”. People and the government disagreed with Dr.

Kevorkian’s behavior for many several reasons. First his not a god to control the death of people to make them not feel pain and not to face their diseases and destroy them , he is like telling people that life is not worth living for and problems are not going to be solved except with death. In September of 1998 he videotaped the death of Thomas Youk; the tape was broadcast by CBS television’s 60 Minutes in November, what a cruel thing to videotape? The death of man and broadcast it on live T. V. This man made a hundreds of families miserable with his invention “Mercitron” (mercy machine).

If he is deciding for people weather to live or die by acting if u don’t feel pain then live, if u experience death it will be much helpful and comfortable. Then what is the importance of god, I thought he was the one who knows who will die and when, and can make all of the people of earth die in one second and live in one second. There are only a few cases where someone is allowed to take a life and even these cases are not agreed upon. These cases could be in self defense or if someone is badly injured or sick and there is no medical care that could help him and living on even for a minute will cause suffering beyond imagination.

But there has never been a case where some loco doctor wants to experiment death on other and people agreed with him. This must mean that this is one sick person and no one agrees with him because it is not human. Thank god of course that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans who want to kill themselves but are physically unable to have no constitutional right to end their lives. Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison, but was paroled in 2007, in failing health and nearing his own death by the order of god not by a machine.

This is a strong trial that could go well over either way. Even though the state at this point in time does not have a right-to-die statue I believe it should. A doctor that one is seeking help and care from should have no say how he/she (the patient) should die. By definition a doctor is “a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian (dictionary. com)”. Nowhere in that description does it explain a person licensed to declare rightful legal euthinization.

Being the daughter of a terminal cancer patient is hard enough. I can’t imagine having the extra stress of monitoring how your mother or father dies in the hospital bed. Having a state law for the right to die statue could save so many more families from extra heartache. After all it plan and simple is your very own life to live and if one wants to die in a certain way; by golly they should be allowed to. Plan and simple the statue involves, shifting the right-to-die laws from granting permission for death to defining hat constitutes causing a premature death.

Thereby allowing choosing timely death will require new thinking within the right-to-die movement. But this second approach is likely to be supported by more people who formerly were undecided about the right-to-die. We all want to avoid premature death for ourselves. And we can support new laws that prohibit helping or causing anyone to die too soon. But this still becomes an issue because everyone has different opinions and views on life death and even health treatments.

Looking on the court side the law against causing premature death specifies safeguards that might be fulfilled in order to prove that the death was timely rather than premature. And because these sateguards are included in the written law, no Judge can exclude such facts and opinions from any subsequent trial. A great example would be the last trial of Jack Kevorkian was lost because the defense could not offer testimony from the patient and the family that death at this time was the best possible alternative.

The Judge ruled that all such facts and opinions were irrelevant. The only question was whether Jack Kevorkian gave a lethal injection. “If Dr. Kevorkian had been charged with causing premature death, he would never have been sent to prison because the death of Thomas Youk” who was dying of ALS”was not premature (Park, Permission)”. The fact that he died a timely death would have been proven by presenting safeguards that were fulfilled in choosing the best time for him to die.

I think that one of the biggest miscarriages of Justice that I witnessed in my lifetime was that of Dr. Jack Kevorkian receiving a 10 to 25 year sentence for wanting to help end the suffering of a helpless human-being. Dubbed “Dr. Death” by the media frenzy that followed the actions of the controversial physician, he received this sentence for helping to end the life of 52 year old Thomas Youk. who was fighting a hopeless battle with Lou Gehrig’s disease. Dr.

Kevorkian set up his “suicide machine” In order for the person to knowllngly and voluntarily disperse the chemical concoction that would end the suffering of the victim his family. Although Dr. Kevorkian assisted In the death of 35 people, It was the Thomas Youk case that brought national attention and thus the wrath of the criminal Justice system of the state of Michigan. Similar to phsyclan-sulclde Is the Issue of both voluntary and Involuntary active euthanasia. Both of these Involve carrying out the death of another human being, who either knowingly or unknowllngly makes that decision.

What makes the case of Dr. Kevorkian different is that he met with all of his patients and recorded the fact that they were coherent and able to make their own decision about the ending their life. I am guessing that when the Thomas Youk story aired on 60 Minutes in 1 998, it brought national scutiny and a mockery of the laws in the eyes of the Michigan criminal justice system. I wanted to better understand this concept the particulars about this case and what the overwhelming public opinion on the topic was nationally and within the state of Michigan.

Thomas Young had been suffering for years with Lou Gehrig’s diesease, a slow killing disease that eventually takes al dignity away from the individual. In recent months he had been losing major parts of his lung functions and been choking on his own salive. This man, together with his family, made a conscious decision to end the suffering that came with this terrible disease. Many members of his family spoke in support of Dr. Kevorkian at the trial and during the sentencing producure. Youk’s brother Terry said ” Kevorkian was the only person with the “courage and fortitude to defy those indequate and unjust laws. According to the article nearly 2 to 1 Michigan residents supported the law banning this type of action by a physican an this Is pretty close to the national level regarding this topic. According to our text “A survey of 988 terminally ill patients found that 60. % said they they supported euthanasian or physician-assisted suicide In general, but only 10. 6% reported seriously considering it for themselves” (Rathus, p. 397) I think this goes to show that despite the fact that many people support It, they are reluctant to pursue It for many types of reasons.

I Imagine that one of the most popular reasons Is linked to relglous faith and how that would be viewed In the eyes of God. I guess everyone has their personal opinion on the matter and Ilkewlse should have their personal choice on how to die with dignity without putting a further emotional and financial burden upon their family. I never understood that as a society we can be considered humane by putting an animal to death if it is dealing with a terminal disease, but when this same type of thought comes to people, the attitude drastically changes.

Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years of this sentence for what I view as a total injustice Schiavo case, where she was left on life support for many years, causing a legal battle between her family and her husband have brought many “end of life” issue to the forefront. I am an advocated for personal choice on many matters and I certainly would have to agree with Dr. Kevorkian, Thomas Youk, and the many other people he elped to die with dignity. I think that the major mistake that Dr.

Kevorkain made was his willingness to bring this topic to national media. Although this brought attention to the topic at hand, it also aggravated the authorities of the state where her performed the physician-assisted suicide. Another aspect of the Youk case that makes it unique is that Dr. Kevorkain actually started the “suicide machine” because Youk could not physically do it because of his illness. This minor detail made the case more Justifiable in a legal manner since he actually initiated the chemicals to flow in to Youk’s body.

From Jack Kevorkian to Terry Schiavo, much media attention has been given in recent years to the question of the right to die. Most American states have laws against taking one’s own life and many also have specific laws against assisted suicide. Many others charge those who would assist with suicide with manslaughter or attempted murder. Opponents of euthanasia say that there is no provision in American law for the right to die. Many specific rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and others have been granted through the Constitution and its amendments, but nowhere has the law granted a person the right to die.

Proponents claim the right is inherent, God-given and a matter of free will. The truth lies somewhere in between. Americans should have the right to determine when their lives should end. That right is granted them by the Declaration of Independence. Americans have the right to die, as it is included in the right to life, the right of self-determination and the pursuit of happiness. The first legal standard allowing Americans to choose to die should be the words of founding father Thomas Jefferson.

In writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said that people should have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ” By simple logic, death is an inherent part of life and therefore should be protected by Jefferson’s words. As death is the ending of life and the right to life is guaranteed by the Declaration, it is clear that citizens should be afford the right to die as they choose. By guaranteeing people the right to life and liberty, Jefferson may have been simply spouting the philosophies of John Locke and others, but he inadvertently guaranteed people the liberty to choose their own death.

Clearly, in 1776, the concept of keeping people alive through the use of machines was not a consideration. However, Jefferson makes it clear that self-determination is a right of the people. It is that very self-determination that gave the American colonies the right to revolt against England and form their own country. That same right of self-determination should also apply to the average citizen. Nothing is more a matter of personal freedom than the right to die. Other cultures have long practiced this form of self-determination.

In many cultures, the sick, infirmed or elderly would leave their society to die when they decided it was time. The concept that society has become more civilized should not prevent people from making this choice if they desire. The reality is that modern medicine has allowed many people to live beyond what would once have been a normal life expectancy. Many of those people regret their longevity as they feel isolated, due to the deaths of contemporaries, and feel the guilt of being a financial or emotional burden on their families.

Others do not want to face the pain of chronic disease. These people have earned the right to do as they please and by the theory of self-determination, they should be granted that right. Finally, the Declaration grants people the right to “the pursuit of happiness. ” Again, despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no guarantee that simply lengthening a person’s life grants them additional happiness. In fact, some elderly persons are simply lonely and in pain. The pursuit of happiness for them might include an end to their suffering and as such, the right to die.

The simple matter is that by guaranteeing people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and by predicating our society on the right of self-determination, America has already made it clear that the right to die is inherent in our beliefs. It should be as clear as the right to freedom of the press or the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, though we preach a separation of church and state, America is also a religious country and the right to die will not be acknowledged until the fear of the moral repercussions is overcome.