I recently watched HBO's Original Movie entitled "You Don't Know Jack" chronicling the actions, beliefs, and legal tribulations of the controversial figure pathologist and "right-to-die" activist Dr. Jack Kevorkian. It wa
s a name I heard as a young child as the butt of many jokes, but I didn't know and furthermore wouldn't have completely understood the actions of the man. So when I saw the commercials for the original movie and the casting of Al Pacino - one of my favorite actors - I was intrigued. So I watched it and as usual with me, it got me thinking deeply. And I never thought I'd say this when I was a child and I heard his name smeared as if he were a serial murderer, but I agree with Dr. Jack. People tend to draw their own conclusions when they hear the numbers; he "assisted" over 130 suicides. But this man wasn't some deranged mad scientist hell-bent on seeing people die or the power to kill in legal means. He lost his medical license because of his actions, I think the risk itself of losing the right to practice medicine would've scared him out of that if this were only some sick hobby. He offered his services to terminally ill patients who contacted him, not vice versa. Furthermore, the numerous times he was brought to trial, he wasn't trying to find some slimy rhetorical or loopholes to avoid going to jail. He was deliberately trying to use the legal system to put what in his mind was an archaic and overall nonsensical double standard on trial. He was more than willing to become the martyr of the issue if it could eventually overturn prejudice against, or at least further the argument for, "right to die" decisions for terminally ill or constantly suffering patients. In the picture below Kevorkian is shown coming to court wearing a medieval wooden pillory to represent his distaste that the prosecution had to resort to such outdated and outrageous common law doctrine to prosecute him. According to the ancient common law doctrines used conversion away from Christianity and openly disagreeing with anything in the Bible were also criminal acts. He carried out his services to a dear friend of his who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, so he clearly wasn't a hypocrite either. So many people are great and standing up for an issue until the question "What if it was someone you knew" question is asked. So speaking as I speak to my people, I feel him. The biggest argument against him was "You don't have the right to play God, you're overstepping your bounds trying to determine who lives or dies." However, quite frankly that's in the job description of the doctor under the Hippocratic Oath. I mean, if a doctor said "This guy's dying and I can help him, but who am I to interfere with the will of God?" he'd be crucified for violating the Oath and "playing God" in that situation. Sounds like a double standard. If a person is unconscious in a coma, the d
ecision can be made to pull the plug from the machine and let them die with no problem, but if a conscious, rational Lou Gehrig's disease sufferer says they've been living in excruciating pain for years and wants to escape the pain and stop causing their family so much stress and money, the doctor can't listen to him? Is "physician insisted suicide" a medical service to a dying or suffering patient, or is is "murder"? More applicably to me and my demographic, three NYPD officers can shoot an unarmed man outside his home 41 times (over 2.5 full clips between the 3 pigs...i mean cops) and no one even loses their jobs, but Kevorkian had to do over eight years for "murder" for lethally injecting a man who looked up and contacted Kevorkian to help him die; he even went so far as to sign an informed consent form. I ran track with someone who intentionally shot a man to death and was out in less than five years. Does that seem fair? What's next, abortionists facing prosecution despite the women coming to the clinics for their services? And one ideal from everything I heard Kevorkian say resonated the most with me; if I were in a situation where I'd have to live the remainder of my life in excruciating pain until my terminal disease finally killed me, I may want the option to die peacefully too. I wouldn't want to be such a burden on my family, I wouldn't want to be reduced to the point where I have no quality of life and am simply a charity case, and I wouldn't want to spend years and years suffering when I know that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. I also may want the right to die on my terms. Food for Thought...
s a name I heard as a young child as the butt of many jokes, but I didn't know and furthermore wouldn't have completely understood the actions of the man. So when I saw the commercials for the original movie and the casting of Al Pacino - one of my favorite actors - I was intrigued. So I watched it and as usual with me, it got me thinking deeply. And I never thought I'd say this when I was a child and I heard his name smeared as if he were a serial murderer, but I agree with Dr. Jack. People tend to draw their own conclusions when they hear the numbers; he "assisted" over 130 suicides. But this man wasn't some deranged mad scientist hell-bent on seeing people die or the power to kill in legal means. He lost his medical license because of his actions, I think the risk itself of losing the right to practice medicine would've scared him out of that if this were only some sick hobby. He offered his services to terminally ill patients who contacted him, not vice versa. Furthermore, the numerous times he was brought to trial, he wasn't trying to find some slimy rhetorical or loopholes to avoid going to jail. He was deliberately trying to use the legal system to put what in his mind was an archaic and overall nonsensical double standard on trial. He was more than willing to become the martyr of the issue if it could eventually overturn prejudice against, or at least further the argument for, "right to die" decisions for terminally ill or constantly suffering patients. In the picture below Kevorkian is shown coming to court wearing a medieval wooden pillory to represent his distaste that the prosecution had to resort to such outdated and outrageous common law doctrine to prosecute him. According to the ancient common law doctrines used conversion away from Christianity and openly disagreeing with anything in the Bible were also criminal acts. He carried out his services to a dear friend of his who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, so he clearly wasn't a hypocrite either. So many people are great and standing up for an issue until the question "What if it was someone you knew" question is asked. So speaking as I speak to my people, I feel him. The biggest argument against him was "You don't have the right to play God, you're overstepping your bounds trying to determine who lives or dies." However, quite frankly that's in the job description of the doctor under the Hippocratic Oath. I mean, if a doctor said "This guy's dying and I can help him, but who am I to interfere with the will of God?" he'd be crucified for violating the Oath and "playing God" in that situation. Sounds like a double standard. If a person is unconscious in a coma, the d
ecision can be made to pull the plug from the machine and let them die with no problem, but if a conscious, rational Lou Gehrig's disease sufferer says they've been living in excruciating pain for years and wants to escape the pain and stop causing their family so much stress and money, the doctor can't listen to him? Is "physician insisted suicide" a medical service to a dying or suffering patient, or is is "murder"? More applicably to me and my demographic, three NYPD officers can shoot an unarmed man outside his home 41 times (over 2.5 full clips between the 3 pigs...i mean cops) and no one even loses their jobs, but Kevorkian had to do over eight years for "murder" for lethally injecting a man who looked up and contacted Kevorkian to help him die; he even went so far as to sign an informed consent form. I ran track with someone who intentionally shot a man to death and was out in less than five years. Does that seem fair? What's next, abortionists facing prosecution despite the women coming to the clinics for their services? And one ideal from everything I heard Kevorkian say resonated the most with me; if I were in a situation where I'd have to live the remainder of my life in excruciating pain until my terminal disease finally killed me, I may want the option to die peacefully too. I wouldn't want to be such a burden on my family, I wouldn't want to be reduced to the point where I have no quality of life and am simply a charity case, and I wouldn't want to spend years and years suffering when I know that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. I also may want the right to die on my terms. Food for Thought...
No comments:
Post a Comment