Dr. Kevorkian: creator of anheroes or douchebag?

IRHari

IRHari

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
On one hand, HBO’s You Don’t Know Jack strenuously attempts to be impartial when making statements about euthanasia, but at the same time, the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]movie[/COLOR][/COLOR]
 accepts the fact that most biopics lean on sympathizing with the main character. It gleefully tries to locate a comfortable stride about a topic that is…well, really uncomfortable to discuss. Merely the mention of Dr. Jack Kevorkian will spark an instant debate, and most will have already formed an opinion of the man, not considering the nuggets of intriguing information that are divulged in this commendably pedestrian effort.
Click to expand...

http://www.411mania.com/movies/dvd_reviews/137359/You-Dont-Know-Jack-Review.htm

Saw this on Saturday, it was pretty interesting albeit long. What did people think of the movie? What did people think of the man?

Personally, I think as a doctor what he did violated the Hippocratic Oath. However, once you get past that, I think euthanasia et al. gets into legal territory.
 
Haven't seen it, will try to remember to set the DVR.

I always supported him in the sense that I think people should be able to choose to end their lives on their own terms. And better they can do that in a controlled and painless setting vs. trying to do it themselves.

I know if I was terminally ill and in terrible, agonizing pain in my last months or weeks etc. I'd prefer to end it.
 
Neither. Kevorkian is not a douchebag, nor were his patients "an heroes." If someone is facing a long and agonizing death, who is ANYONE to force them to live out? That's terrible. If I'm ever in such a position, I'd HOPE to have a doctor to put me down if I can't do it myself.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Haven't seen it, will try to remember to set the DVR.

I always supported him in the sense that I think people should be able to choose to end their lives on their own terms. And better they can do that in a controlled and painless setting vs. trying to do it themselves.

I know if I was terminally ill and in terrible, agonizing pain in my last months or weeks etc. I'd prefer to end it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the whole thing is about as close to a slam-dunk as you can get.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Personally, I think as a doctor what he did violated the Hippocratic Oath. [/QUOTE]

One could argue that you're doing more harm to the individual by making them suffer.
 
The views most people have about ending one's own life seem to be more closely tied to religion than what is actually happening to someone. Some people would rather see someone slowly wither away and die just to "save their soul."

I'd pose this question to them, would you rather someone go to a doctor like Kevorkian and be euthanized or decide to take things into their own hands and kill themselves somehow? If we're in charge of our own lives (don't say it) why not be in charge of our own deaths?
 
With 6 billion people, another dead body is meaningless.

More important than making assisted suicide legal is the legalization of required suicide.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] One could argue that you're doing more harm to the individual by making them suffer.[/QUOTE]

Go for it brah.
 
Should be 100% legal, but patient should be required to administer the drug cocktail themselves (if at all possible). Doctor prescribes, patient takes it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Should be 100% legal, but patient should be required to administer the drug cocktail themselves (if at all possible). Doctor prescribes, patient takes it.[/QUOTE]

Pfft. The average American would fuck it up. We need a specialized class of worker for this. I'll apply.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']With 6 billion people, another dead body is meaningless.

More important than making assisted suicide legal is the legalization of required suicide.[/QUOTE]

Carousel.
 
I watched the first half of the movie and have the rest DVR'd to watch later, and I thought it was very well done.

I couldn't agree more with Kevorkian's principles, and I think physician-assisted suicide should be 100% legal. Kevorkian was actually on Real Time a few weeks ago and Bill Maher made the completely accurate point that he was not always his own best advocate, then or now. I wonder if things would have gone differently for him had he been a bit less in-your-face about what he was doing, though in the end I suppose his goal was to change the general culture of medicine as much as it was helping his individual patients.
 
Like you, I saw the first half of the film. Pacino was phenomenal.

I also saw Kevorkian interviewed on Real Time w/ Bill Maher (holy fuck what an amazing show - I'm so glad I got HBO finally!), and appreciated Kevorkian's candor. He has a macabre sense of humor, and that, I feel (seen in his tact and in his artwork), really harms how his case was presented.

But his point about Doctor's playing "God" anytime they make a decision - including decisions not to act - is profound in how people don't seem to think of the weight of his point there. It's so very true. Doctors as a profession interfere with nature - prolong it, fight it, end it, or succumb to it. They play God when they provide chemotherapy for the cancer - an expression of God's Will.
They play God when they refuse to provide contraceptives - because it violates God's Will.
They play God when they give you tetanus shots because you stepped on a rusty nail - the same Rusty Nail God Willed you to step on and die from.

Christian Scientism agrees with this standpoint.

Kevorkian's not the first to make this point, but he does so in a sensible and pragmatic way.
 
[quote name='bvharris']I watched the first half of the movie and have the rest DVR'd to watch later, and I thought it was very well done.

I couldn't agree more with Kevorkian's principles, and I think physician-assisted suicide should be 100% legal. Kevorkian was actually on Real Time a few weeks ago and Bill Maher made the completely accurate point that he was not always his own best advocate, then or now. I wonder if things would have gone differently for him had he been a bit less in-your-face about what he was doing, though in the end I suppose his goal was to change the general culture of medicine as much as it was helping his individual patients.[/QUOTE]
I saw that too, i remember him calling physicians today cowards i believe. His artwork is...bizarre? I can see why some people think of him the way they do, Like Maher said he isn't always his best advocate. The guy stands by his principals though, which i respect.
 
I wouldn't think of this no different than putting down an animal because of suffering.

The only clause I could see is if the person is unwilling or unable to decide for themselves. If they can, I don't see any issue. But, it would have to be done by a professional. A Death Doctor. else if it's a pill or a drug users can take whenever, then that could be misused.
 
[quote name='xycury']I wouldn't think of this no different than putting down an animal because of suffering.

The only clause I could see is if the person is unwilling or unable to decide for themselves. If they can, I don't see any issue. But, it would have to be done by a professional. A Death Doctor. else if it's a pill or a drug users can take whenever, then that could be misused.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but how many people get upset at the thought of killing a dog just because it has an incurable disease, has been horribly injured or is old and in constant pain?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yeah, but how many people get upset at the thought of killing a dog just because it has an incurable disease, has been horribly injured or is old and in constant pain?[/QUOTE]


No one was there when we had to put down Scooby because of shitty China dog food....

I really don't get the idea of letting animals suffer when it won't get better. We have Hospices for humans, but none for animals.

It's still a sad situation, but at least a human can acknowledge that he/she doesn't want to continue living.

If animals can comminicate to understand that, we'd have a clearer connection. We are showing compassion and can only assume that this is the better choice.
 
Yeah, I've not seen anyone suggest animals shouldn't be put down. Though I'm sure there are some out there with that view.

Upset over having to put the animal down? Of course. Upset over the practice being legal? Haven't seen it personally.
 
I personally think what he did was great. I care about life just as much as the next guy, but when you're terminally ill with a few days/hours left, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to end it. See your friends/family, say your goodbyes, then leave. When I'm old and gray, I hope that I'll have a physician kind enough to help me out in this respect. There's nothing worse than pain, especially pain that you know isn't going away.

However, I will agree that you should administer the dose yourself. Having the physician do it, like Kevorkian did, is crossing into dangerous territory. No matter how much consent the patient gives, it's still going to be a legal nightmare.
 
Kevorkian did not administer any dosage. He invented a device for a painless self-administered end-of-life.

If people don't administer the dosage themselves, legally it wouldn't have been much of an issue, b/c Kevorkian would have instantly been convicted of homicide. He could not be, however - the law was changed after he began acting specifically so he *could* be prosecuted.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Kevorkian did not administer any dosage. He invented a device for a painless self-administered end-of-life.

If people don't administer the dosage themselves, legally it wouldn't have been much of an issue, b/c Kevorkian would have instantly been convicted of homicide. He could not be, however - the law was changed after he began acting specifically so he *could* be prosecuted.[/QUOTE]

I thought he administered one of them himself though, because the patient couldn't do it himself? That's what got him convicted.

Yup, Wikipedia agrees. It could be wrong though. I'm not an expert, I'm just going by what I heard from other people.

[quote name='Wikipedia']On the November 22, 1998, broadcast of 60 Minutes, Kevorkian allowed the airing of a videotape he had made on September 17, 1998, which depicted the voluntary euthanasia of Thomas Youk, 52, who was in the final stages of ALS. After Youk provided his fully informed consent (a sometimes complex legal determination made in this case by editorial consensus) on September 17, 1998, Kevorkian himself administered a lethal injection. This was highly significant, as all of his earlier clients had reportedly completed the process themselves. During the videotape, Kevorkian dared the authorities to try to convict him or stop him from carrying out assisted suicides. This incited the prosecuting attorney to bring murder charges against Kevorkian, claiming he had single-handedly caused the death.[/QUOTE]
 
Fair enough - indeed you'll have people who are not physically capable of using the device themselves yet wish to do so.

Your point's well made.
 
Yeah you fucks who wimped out after the first half should watch the rest. Really good movie.

Youk was his last patient and the reason why he was put in jail. They didn't charge him with assisted suicide, and as a result he couldn't put witnesses on the stand (like Youk's wife, brother) that brought the emotional aspect to the case.

In every single case previous to Youk, the AG lost and Kevorkian won because of the 'sob story' that made the jury believe the patient really wanted to die, and Kevorkian was just helping them carry that out.

It really was a brilliant move on the part of the AG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top