Kevorkian Released After 8 years in Prison

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:02 am

What do you think about this? I'll save my opinion for later on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18974940/

G-man · Post by **G-man** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:09 am

Why? Waiting to see what the most popular opinion is? :sneaky:

I'll save mine for later, too... :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:15 am

i think if the guy helped the suffering of those that were in pain and had no chance of getting better ,the guy deserves a medal , i sure hope that if i ever have any thing like that wrong with me ,my loved ones would help end my suffering

guys i always post what i think ,you will like me or hate me for it but either way it will be the real me you are judging :-3 :-3

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:20 am

G-man;627339 wrote: Why? Waiting to see what the most popular opinion is? :sneaky:

I'll save mine for later, too... :wah:

Heh. No G-man, not that. I just thought since I'm always barging in with my opinions on stuff that I'd give everyone else a chance to speak first.

You know me...I am firm in my opinions, even the unpopular ones.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:47 pm

He's a serial killer that's literally gotten away with murder. I don't understand people who feel passionately enough to break the law, but not passionately enough to actually pay the consequence of the crime.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:54 pm

I was surprised he was released.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:06 pm

For those who may think theres no place for Kevorkian - your wrong, perhaps you've never experienced severe pain or witnessed a loved one with pain and a hopeless out come.

I hope as Jimbo said - my last wish is fulfilled if necessary.

Patsy

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:14 pm

AC I think he would agree with you, he did his time. At his age I doubt he will be assisting in any deaths unless it is his own.

I agree Jimbo and Patsy at my age you see a lot of painful deaths that seem so unecessary, if they are going to die why not make it painless and quick. Hopefully in time we will figure out how to assist our loved ones in dying. Hospice is wonderful I will say that they are excellent.

[QUOTE]He's a serial killer that's literally gotten away with murder. I don't understand people who feel passionately enough to break the law, but not passionately enough to actually pay the consequence of the crime.[/QUOTE]

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:01 pm

RedGlitter;627331 wrote: What do you think about this? I'll save my opinion for later on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18974940/

I always agreed with Kavorkian, and still do. His caustic, superior than thou attitude was no help to his cause. A more mellow personality could have delivered the message more effectively I believe, and avoided jailtime.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:10 pm

Accountable;627547 wrote: He's a serial killer that's literally gotten away with murder. I don't understand people who feel passionately enough to break the law, but not passionately enough to actually pay the consequence of the crime.

Here we go again :wah:

First off he did pay the penalty that was served him. His debt to

--->society<--- is paid in full sans any probationary requirements.

The "laws" of this land, some of them anyway are misguided, broken, unreasonable and just plain screwed up.

In my opinion this was a man of compassion. He helped suffering people that requested his help. And I think his blatancy was in order to bring light to the subject of peoples right to die with dignity and free of misery.

Theres no place for the govt. in a humans last moments. Its too personal for that.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:30 pm

Accountable;627547 wrote: He's a serial killer that's literally gotten away with murder. I don't understand people who feel passionately enough to break the law, but not passionately enough to actually pay the consequence of the crime.

Perhaps he had no right to play God and help these people to die. I still believe he let them die with some dignity. I don't believe he's a serial killer. He's a man who believed in what he was doing. He was willing to take the risks and pay the price. He had compassion.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:35 pm

Patsy Warnick;627560 wrote: For those who may think theres no place for Kevorkian - your wrong, perhaps you've never experienced severe pain or witnessed a loved one with pain and a hopeless out come.

I hope as Jimbo said - my last wish is fulfilled if necessary.

Patsy

CARLA;627565 wrote: AC I think he would agree with you, he did his time. At his age I doubt he will be assisting in any deaths unless it is his own.

I agree Jimbo and Patsy at my age you see a lot of painful deaths that seem so unecessary, if they are going to die why not make it painless and quick. Hopefully in time we will figure out how to assist our loved ones in dying. Hospice is wonderful I will say that they are excellent.

Lon;627591 wrote: I always agreed with Kavorkian, and still do. His caustic, superior than thou attitude was no help to his cause. A more mellow personality could have delivered the message more effectively I believe, and avoided jailtime.

Nomad;627596 wrote: Here we go again :wah:

First off he did pay the penalty that was served him. His debt to

--->society

i have watched both my mother and my ex father in law ,die horrible pain filled agonizing slow deaths from cancer ,to leave them dying in such pain with no hope of getting better was inhumane ,if it had been a horse or a dog it would of been kinder to of put it out of its misery ,so why let a loved one who is in such utter despair die this awefull death ??? if any of my loved ones asked me to help them to end their life if they were suffering like this ,i would in a second i'd never let my loved ones be in such pain i love them too much for that

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:24 am

jimbo;627684 wrote: i have watched both my mother and my ex father in law ,die horrible pain filled agonizing slow deaths from cancer ,to leave them dying in such pain with no hope of getting better was inhumane ,if it had been a horse or a dog it would of been kinder to of put it out of its misery ,so why let a loved one who is in such utter despair die this awefull death ??? if any of my loved ones asked me to help them to end their life if they were suffering like this ,i would in a second i'd never let my loved ones be in such pain i love them too much for that

And yet strangely enough you find this amusing :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:33 am

Nomad;627787 wrote: And yet strangely enough you find this amusing :wah:

no not at all i posted this as a warning ,dont throw baseball bats at your friends :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:01 am

You guys, in my fairly humble opinion, are mixing irrelevant points.

Point 1: Many have said they wouldn't want to suffer and die a horrible death, that they'd welcome someone coming to their aid to end the pain.

Me too. The point isn't relevant to his crime.

Point 2: The law is wrong; it doesn't take humaneness or humanity into consideration.

I agree, and that's also irrelevant. The law is in place. He planned the death of another human being, and he carried out that plan, which resulted in a life ended. I believe the sentence is 25 years to life in prison, but I could be wrong.

My point: If a law is wrong, change it. If you break a law in the name of good or justice or whatever, you're marking yourself a martyr. Be a martyr, then. force the courts to unjustly punish you, and trust that society will wake up and work to change it.

In this instance, I place the good doctor in the same category as the Menedez brothers (if I recall the name right) who, as adults, murdered their parents to end their abusive ways. They tried to say they weren't guilty because of the abuse. Just like Kavorkian, they claimed they weren't guilty for doing exactly what the law prohibits. In both instances, the criminals were cowards for not standing tall and proudly proclaiming that they broke the law and why.

This "he's not guilty because the law is wrong" is exactly the song the defenders of illegal aliens are singing.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:14 am

He planned the death of another human being, and he carried out that plan, which resulted in a life ended. I believe the sentence is 25 years to life in prison, but I could be wrong.

He didnt plan their demise they planned their demise. He didnt put an ad in the Sunday paper looking for people to off. He was sought out by the ill. Many of the sick also wished to make their plight recognized in hopes of making societal changes as in I believe the last mercy killing that was televised. The patient had very definitive views on the matter.

My point: If a law is wrong, change it.

Which is precisely what the doctor was attempting to do. Its not a black and white issue. Changes like this require brutal and honest methods. The laws dont bend so easily as you know. He brought the issue to the table in the only way he could that would make it a debatable point of controversy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:10 pm

Nomad;627860 wrote: He planned the death of another human being, and he carried out that plan, which resulted in a life ended. I believe the sentence is 25 years to life in prison, but I could be wrong.

He didnt plan their demise they planned their demise. He didnt put an ad in the Sunday paper looking for people to off. He was sought out by the ill. Many of the sick also wished to make their plight recognized in hopes of making societal changes as in I believe the last mercy killing that was televised. The patient had very definitive views on the matter.

My point: If a law is wrong, change it.

Which is precisely what the doctor was attempting to do. Its not a black and white issue. Changes like this require brutal and honest methods. The laws dont bend so easily as you know. He brought the issue to the table in the only way he could that would make it a debatable point of controversy.
Thank you for not claiming that he's not guilty.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:47 pm

Accountable;627943 wrote: Thank you for not claiming that he's not guilty.

yup acc guilty of being a person brave enough to go to prison so his fellow humans do not die a slow lingering death racked with horrifying pain ,not to mention laying there knowing your going to die ,and seeing your loved ones in pain watching you die ,give him a medal ,i just hope when my time comes and i'm going in loads of pain there is a guilty person like him around

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:34 am

My father in law has recently passed away after much suffering. Toward the end he could not breathe and eat/drink at the same time so every mouthfull was torture he drank small amounts but did not really eat anything for the last months.. Yes months..his body weighed less than a small child by the time he died

He could not sleep properly could not lie down because he could not catch his breath, and was in great pain. Doctors basically said they could do nothing more to ease his suffering and because he was terminal they didnt even admit him to hospital.

If I kept a dog in that kind of suffering I would be prosecuted and rightly so.

It would be classed as allowing an animal to suffer and the dog would be put to sleep to"allow it to die with dignity" why then is a human not allowed the same rights as a dog?

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:45 am

Victoria;628273 wrote: My father in law has recently passed away after much suffering. Toward the end he could not breathe and eat/drink at the same time so every mouthfull was torture he drank small amounts but did not really eat anything for the last months.. Yes months..his body weighed less than a small child by the time he died

He could not sleep properly could not lie down because he could not catch his breath, and was in great pain. Doctors basically said they could do nothing more to ease his suffering and because he was terminal they didnt even admit him to hospital.

If I kept a dog in that kind of suffering I would be prosecuted and rightly so.

It would be classed as allowing an animal to suffer and the dog would be put to sleep to"allow it to die with dignity" why then is a human not allowed the same rights as a dog?

after watching my mother and my ex father in law die in the same way i know exactly how you feel

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:58 pm

I made my feelings on the issue clear in the debate with Raven

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:47 pm

Kervorkian and his little play mates believe severely disabled babies should be left to starve at birth.

Do you have a source for that, Magenta?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:27 pm

magenta flame;628910 wrote: I suppose I could find something .....it's common knowledge here, after a sixty minutes interview with Nitchke many years ago.

Plus something to show that K shares the same view?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:28 am

If I can comment on what Magenta's offered, even though I haven't come across any of that info myself, I find it hard to believe that Jack would want to see babies starve to death. That sounds more like a bad rumor to me. I'd be interested to see anything on that.

But assuming it's so, I'm still not balking. You have to pick your battles. You can't have everything the way you want it and not everyone is going to serve each of your ethical needs the way you want them to. So if Jack or that other guy really did hold those notions, I'd be upset but my bigger concern would be that of euthanasia at will so I'd have to accept the bad with the good. Just as I do with politicians.

I was thinking that so many people start talking about *God* when this stuff comes up. Which is fine. I do too. But I doubt I could find ten people here who believe the exact same things about (their) God. So I don't find any harm in a mortal doing what someone else terms God's Work. I see that others do and again that's fine but because of the differentiation, I think it ought to be left up to the individuals concerned. The patient and the doctor. They can sort out their own faith issues.

Most people probably view life as sacred. But there are different ways of holding that one concept. I don't believe in wringing out the very last eking of life from some unfortunate soul because life is sacrosanct. I do believe in ending life on a good note because it is sacrosanct.

It needs to remain a private issue.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:28 am

He has been criticized for his stance on euthanasia, and for creating and providing devices to aid people who want euthanasia, including a simple plastic bag with an elasticized opening called an "exit bag", designed to suffocate the user.

Ok that's bogus. Unacceptable. That is not a comfortable, easy death and if one were going to go that route maybe a shot to the head would be a little more compassionate.

I didn't find anything about deprivation of nutrients for infants but I'll take your word that that's what he said. If that were so, I couldn't disagree more with it. I am assuming this is like the feeding tube issue? I would much rather see a lethal overdose administered than what amounts to starvation. I don't understand the thought process here because euthanasia is Greek for "good death." Neither of these methods will produce a kind exit.

When N. said that about Jack sharing his philosophy, could he have been referring to willful euthanasia in general perhaps and not these other things necessarily?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:23 am

magenta flame;629000 wrote: Recently on a show called "Catalyst" it was about the right to die, they showed a group of ...well.... I wouldn't call them elderly, around fifty to 70 year olds who go to Mexico and smuggle into this country a drug that euthanises animals. It's such a joke now that vetenary clinics in mexico have signs specifically for australian tourists. Apparently you drink the bottle and your dead painlessly before you are able to put the bottle down. Now because the governmant is on to em' and customs look at the elderly coming back into the country a little more closely they have decided to mix up there own stuff in the backyard.

I have a problem with this. One: if these people want a painless death and are willing to break the law to do so, why not go out and get a good dose of heroin? It's quick, painless and they don't have to travel half the world to obtain it.

A) why does it matter that they're breaking the law? That makes them legally wrong but ethically and on principle they may be very correct.

B) I don't know about heroin. I considered this and if I were going to check out, I would be afraid of using some type of drug that may render me a vegetable instead of ending my life. How do you know how much to use?! I could OD on hydrocodone but in the past when I've taken too much, I'd get sick before anything could happen. If you want to die, this would be a problem and (yes I see the irony) even dangerous.

Two: Why are these healthy overgrown adolescents concocting a poison in their backyards and introducing it to our society? Do they not care the legacy they leave behind? DO they believe they will never be burgled? Do they think that one of the grand kids won't find the bottle of their poison? what if they die before drinking it all?

A) The same reason U.S. women drank Drano and reamed their uterii with knitting needles when abortion wasn't available to everyone. There was a need and need creates either profit or desperation, depending on your situation. If we had proper euthanasia methods, there would be no need to do it yourself.

B) What legacy are you talking about? It sounds to me like you rather mean "stigma" instead?

C) If they're burgled, too damn bad. The only good thief is a dead one.

The grandkids can just as easily find the rat poison under the sink and can die from that too so I see no difference in danger.

Three: why aren't these so called scientists and doctors telling these people about a heroin overdose? Why are they making money off the books and royalties telling people how to die in other more wierd ways?

I don't know why on the heroin. Seems silly but perhaps it's because heroin and morphine haven't been looked well upon as an actual beneficial medicine since about the late 1800s. Maybe they don't want to be seen as promoting a drug that's "bad for you." Again, yes I see the irony.

Re: making money, that's where desperation creates profit. There's a dire and viable need for accurate info on how to do the deed the right way. Scientists and doctors aren't always any more ethical than the rest of us. If they were, we'd know a cancer cure by now. They want to get rich too.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:04 am

Pinky;629170 wrote: He's standing up for what he believes in. If someone is suffering that badly and there's nothing that can be done, why can't they be allowed to die in peace?

My dutch grandma drowned in her own lungs, and I know she'd have chosen the same thing..she asked my dad quite a few times.

I mean, put put sick and suffering animals to sleep when we know there's nothing but pain left for them, so why can't people have the same decision if they request it?

Too many people give way under peer pressure and won't stand up for what they think...at least this guy has the guts to, so I admire him for it.

pinkzilla mega post :-4 :-6

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:25 am

I agree about releasing people the same way we release sick animals but I think the reason most don't agree is because they see animals as lesser beings. Not trying to bring that argument up, I'm just saying I think that's why. That the animal's life is considered less sacred.

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:35 am

Victoria;628273 wrote: My father in law has recently passed away after much suffering. Toward the end he could not breathe and eat/drink at the same time so every mouthfull was torture he drank small amounts but did not really eat anything for the last months.. Yes months..his body weighed less than a small child by the time he died

He could not sleep properly could not lie down because he could not catch his breath, and was in great pain. Doctors basically said they could do nothing more to ease his suffering and because he was terminal they didnt even admit him to hospital.

If I kept a dog in that kind of suffering I would be prosecuted and rightly so.

It would be classed as allowing an animal to suffer and the dog would be put to sleep to"allow it to die with dignity" why then is a human not allowed the same rights as a dog?

Bingo, that is what I would have said as well.

Dr. K fulfilled requests, I don't see that as murder.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:48 am

minks;629428 wrote: Bingo, that is what I would have said as well.

Dr. K fulfilled requests, I don't see that as murder.

minkenstein mega post :-6

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:53 am

jimbo;629439 wrote: minkenstein mega post :-6

haha thinks jimbolino

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:59 pm

Accountable;627943 wrote: Thank you for not claiming that he's not guilty.

It didnt occur to me to make an assumption on the legal aspect of it. Actually I was thinking about this and I realized the difference between us might be that I dont hold the law or at least all laws in high esteem. I obey the law because I found out I dont like jail much but this issue transcends judiciary arguments into the realm of something much more valuable.

My life is my life. As is yours. No man or court will dictate my death should I be in a position to have a choice.

Its a sacred right that in your last moments you should ultimately have the freedom to pass as you see fit.

The law to me in this instance is meaningless. Its void of any reasonable argument because as my life is my life so also is my death. I would wish it to be of my making.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:45 pm

Nomad;629747 wrote: It didnt occur to me to make an assumption on the legal aspect of it. Actually I was thinking about this and I realized the difference between us might be that I dont hold the law or at least all laws in high esteem. I obey the law because I found out I dont like jail much but this issue transcends judiciary arguments into the realm of something much more valuable.

My life is my life. As is yours. No man or court will dictate my death should I be in a position to have a choice.

Its a sacred right that in your last moments you should ultimately have the freedom to pass as you see fit.

The law to me in this instance is meaningless. Its void of any reasonable argument because as my life is my life so also is my death. I would wish it to be of my making.

That was perfect, Nomad. I could not have said it better. Any of it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:40 am

Nomad;629747 wrote: It didnt occur to me to make an assumption on the legal aspect of it. Actually I was thinking about this and I realized the difference between us might be that I dont hold the law or at least all laws in high esteem. I obey the law because I found out I dont like jail much but this issue transcends judiciary arguments into the realm of something much more valuable.

My life is my life. As is yours. No man or court will dictate my death should I be in a position to have a choice.

Its a sacred right that in your last moments you should ultimately have the freedom to pass as you see fit.

The law to me in this instance is meaningless. Its void of any reasonable argument because as my life is my life so also is my death. I would wish it to be of my making.
I agree completely. :yh_clap Set the stuff up & let me push the plunger/press the button/whatever. If my beloved asked me to do it for her I would, as painful as it would be for me. My point is that I would not plead innocent in court.

The law definitely needs to be changed, not ignored, is my point. I don't want a court preventing me from ending my life if I want to, but I don't want anyone deciding that my life isn't "quality" enough if I want to keep fighting either. Our society doesn't value life very much, as it is.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:31 am

Nomad;629747 wrote: It didnt occur to me to make an assumption on the legal aspect of it. Actually I was thinking about this and I realized the difference between us might be that I dont hold the law or at least all laws in high esteem. I obey the law because I found out I dont like jail much but this issue transcends judiciary arguments into the realm of something much more valuable.

My life is my life. As is yours. No man or court will dictate my death should I be in a position to have a choice.

Its a sacred right that in your last moments you should ultimately have the freedom to pass as you see fit.

The law to me in this instance is meaningless. Its void of any reasonable argument because as my life is my life so also is my death. I would wish it to be of my making.

you crazy weirdo nomad sometimes i think your a genius :-6 :-6 :-4

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:30 pm

A difficult issue in many ways to be sure.

Personally I've not made up my own mind about this issue. I see the points about suffering made and have compassion. It seems to me that ultimately it ought to be a decision between the doctor and the patient.

The question then becomes, How far do we take this? Do we allow a person suffering from extreme depression to end his life with the help of another when down the road we know he will feel better?

Was the Saskatchewan or was it Manitoban father correct in ending his daughters life because she was in pain and the doctors admitted there was no hope but the child was not terminal?

I cannot speak for those suffering such pain in a terminal illness. I have not and am not at this point in such a position. I do not know what I would want done.

Is allowing a severely deformed baby to starve ethical? I really don't think so. We cannot guess at the quality of life they may enjoy.

As I said above it should be between the doctor and his/her patient and each case would have to be individually decided upon.

Shalom

Ted:-6