One of the biggest mass murderers of recent times is about to be loose among us again:
LANSING, Mich. - Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian will be paroled in June, state Corrections spokesman Leo Lalonde said Wednesday.
To get out, Kevorkian promised he would not assist in any more suicides. Uh-huh. He can no more quit what he does than a child molester can.
Comments
I wouldn't have put it quite that way, Leo, but I certainly expect Dr. Kevorkian will be tenacious as ever in fighting for the good cause he champions: the rights of the terminally ill to end their suffering on their own terms and without the sort of overweening government interference you decry when it comes to things like smoking and trans fats.
Dr Jacks' lawyer sez he only has about a year left, that's why he's pushed for his release before June...
Suppose Jack'll save the taxpayers a little dough and "off" himself?
I have no trouble with people ending suffering on their own terms -- it's the last right some people have. But Kevorkian is an example of what happens when we have a national mood (and sometimes even policies) that makes suicide seem an easy first option instead of an agonizing last one. He's one sick puppy, and I suspect most of the deaths he's been involved in have been on his terms.
No one but the deceased know how the Dr.helped end their lives. But if they wanted him to help them willingly, they have the right to not be in pain and suffer while Dr's and hospitals run up a big tab on their insurance company.
This is one of those issues that is so hard to research that I generally listen to those with much more motivation to become informed than I have.
Not that ending one's own existence is not of importance to me. In fact, I can't criticize an individual who represents that the remainder of his or her life will be too painful to bear and prefers to go out with self-determined calm dignity.
If you tell me that Kevorkian is a sick puppy who manipulates his victims in order to become accessories to a series of murders, I am more than willing to consider that version of the facts.
Hopefully it will be possible to discover enough of the truth of the matter to write the history books -- as they pertain to Kevorkian's contribution, IF ANY, to right-to-die activism -- without teaching our children lies regarding either the man or the legitimate debate about individual rights.
Bear in mind that it took multiple attempts to convict Kevorkian. This is because the family members of his "victims" testified on his behalf and told the juries how grateful they and their deceased loved ones were for his assistance.
By the sixth trial, Kevorkian got the cockamamie idea that he'd act as his own lawyer and the prosecutor ate him for breakfast. (Only to be voted out of office by a public that saw him as a jerk.)
Leo, I doubt that any of these peoples' decisions weren't agonized over. I don't see the sinister motives here that you do. Kevorkian certainly doesn't come across as the most sympathetic individual, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call him a serial killer or a sick puppy.
Alex also makes valid points.
On the one hand, the opinions of those families who have endorsed Kevorkian's support and assistance have to be respected, and granted more realistic weight than anyone's personal theoretical or ideological easy-chair analysis. In short, this is an area in which any critic's view must take a distant back seat to the real-life conclusions of human beings whose relatives or friends have had to occupy a front-row seat -- as a dying human being has confronted the intensely personal question whether to let fate take its course -- or whether to apply one's remaining human influence to sway the date, time and nature of one's own passing.
I have no doubt that we all aspire collectively -- but more important, individually -- to enjoy an end for our lives in which we have a say-so. Either we have already published and made generally known our wishes -- or at least we have retained, in our last days, an ability to make known our wishes, if necessary or prudent, the manner, timing and circumstances of our actual passing.
In this scenario specifically, academic ideals or untested helium-supported debate points fly past our range of vision like lazy, fragile balloons -- unfairly vulnerable to a single pinprick.
Blimps -- floaters -- embarrassingly empty of practical value -- still quantify the uncomplicated data which tells the truth about everyday human actions -- in the simplest, inarguable mathematics.
We are not saints, and we do make honest mistakes. But those realities do not make us untrustworthy -- these facts, that errors creep in despite our best efforts, do not disqualify us.
We are still worthy of trust. We are still reliable as we publish the results of good-faith surveys and experiments. The fact that errors occasionally creep into data does not make us unique, nor does it imply any effort to deceive.
When we publish material errors in our data, we will be delighted to publish large, bold corrections. We have no allergy to accuracy in any matter under the sun.
Onward and upward.