I am not but 4 minutes into the new HBO series Kevorkian based on the life and trial of Jack Kevorkian. Most of us know Dr. Kevorkian as Doctor Death, he began the controversy in the 1980s and 1990s over whether the terminally ill have a right to end their lives with medical aid. I wasn't around for most of years that Dr. Kevorkian assisted these patients before being tried, however I do recall growing up hearing references made to Jack Kevorkian and associating him with "bad people and bad things". Over the years I have heard, read and learned the most minor of details about Dr. Death, and this is my first time to watch this HBO show. I do not know what I will learn, what I will find appalling, grotesque or even justifiable; but I will say this before I begin watching the show, from what little knowledge I do possess about Jack Kevorkian, I believe he was morally justifiable and I do support medical assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Though, I myself have never been terminally ill, nor have I recently or currently known someone who is terminally ill where ever day is a struggle for them just to take their next breath. I have however seen and spoken with those who have loved ones who are. I do understand at terminal illness is serious and that cannot be cured or cared for. Lets make sure we're all on the same page here with this definition first, according to online medical sources:
Terminal illness is a medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma. In popular use, it indicates a disease which will end the life of the sufferer...Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course.
I understand that there can be an arguable debate here, however debating the miraculous is not always factual and not always easy. So please, save the debates and understand that most of the time people who are diagnosed as terminally ill will likely die within the allotted time given by the physician.
I will say that I believe it is a persons choice to die in circumstances such as the terminally ill. Patients who are terminally ill must rely on medications and other forms of pain relief to make it through that day, yet still have it lingering in the back of their minds that they may not even make it through the day. Given that most patients are bed ridden and must rely on a caregiver, at what point does a person say "OK, that's enough"?
I strongly believe that it is a persons choice to participate in medical assisted suicide.
As I am sitting here watching this show, I learned something. There was a complete genocide of the Armenian people. How come I have never heard about this before? The Great Crime as it was known to the Armenians happened in 1915, shortly after WW1, the Ottoman Empire destroyed the Armenian people. Was this too minuscule of a massacre to leave out of our history books in high school? It doesn't appear that way. So why? Why is only the Jewish Holocaust caused by the Nazi's so widely discussed when there have been other abominable genocides in history?
As this show continues, they have no discussed Dr. Kevorkian's first patient. Janet Adkins in June 1990. She was an Alzheimers patient and did not want to progress with her life into deterioration of her memory. Understandable. Why would anyone actually want to live their life losing their memory day to day? You wouldn't be you without your memory. Therefore, Mrs. Adkins opted for medical assisted suicide. Taking a step back, Jack Kevorkian created a machine he called "The Suicide Machine", it had three bottle filled with different substances, the final substance being potassium chloride. The objective of The Suicide Machine was to relax the patient, put the patient into a coma, and then the potassium chloride stopped the heart muscles from working- basically a heart attack, but comfortably. Sitting here thinking about lethal injection for criminals sentenced to the death penalty and also the euthanasia of pets, is this not the exact same thing?
Why is it okay for the government to give the OK to prisons to bring death to criminals, and peoples beloved pets yet it's not okay for medical doctors to do the same? For example, a friend of mine had a Labrador dog that was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 10 (human years). Over the years, we watched this poor dog deteriorate, he had a hard time walking up steps, he had a hard time eating his solid food, eventually having to change to canned dog food. He began having trouble urinating and passing bowel movements but when he was able to it was uncontrollable so if he were laying on the living room floor that's where it happened. This resulted in the poor dog to be caged up outside unable to escape the chain linked fence that surrounded him. One day his owner went outside to feed him and found him unable to move from his plastic dog house, the dog could not get up, could not eat the soft food, and had feces in its dog house from the previous night. Cancerous lumps grew so big throughout his entire body that it looked as if he had swallowed several softball and they skipped his stomach and went under his skin all over his body. This dog was in serious pain. The owner had been supplying the dog with pain medication since the diagnosis of Cancer but at this point it wasn't enough. The owner knew it was time. Time to put the dog down. The dog, of course had no say. It was the owners decision. So he took the dog to the vet to be euthanized that evening.
My point here is, the dog had no choice once the owner had made up his mind that it was the dogs time to go. Sure I am aware of the argument that a dog is not a human and can not make this decision on his own, but that is exactly my point. If the dog had the choice I can imagine it would have gone to the vet for medical assisted suicide along time before the owner took him. This is widely accepted in the United States.
Why, is my question.
Why is it okay and not looked down upon when someone takes their pet to be put down because it has cancer and is in such poor debilitating conditions, yet its not okay for a person who has cancer and is in such a poor debilitating state for them to call Dr. Kevorkian to be put down?
Those who oppose Dr. Kevorkian's method of assisted suicide, I believe should take a second look at all the options. I understand that if it were my close family member I would be angry that my family member chose to commit suicide because of their illness when there might be a gleam of hope of recovery, however, given the circumstances it is completely justifiable and understandable. I disagree with those who say Kevorkian was morally wrong to provide this assistance because in all respect there is no right or wrong morals, its personal. There is a standard of morals, of course, however the easiest and probably most over used but widely known moral example is that of abortion. Some believe abortion is moral and some believe it is amoral; but who's to say exactly? At this point it goes into matters of religion, but I wont go there.
Putting all religious aspects and beliefs aside, think about it, if it were you, and you were terminally ill and wanted the pain and suffering of yourself and your loved ones to cease, what would you do? It's a personal choice, only you can make that choice, and those who personally wouldn't want medical assisted suicide do not have to do it, but the option should be there for those who do.
Kevorkian, is a strong advocate for the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, "it provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named" (legal-dictionary.com) however I believe this matter should lie in a subcategory to the 110th "Freedom of Choice" amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment