Louisiana's execution chamber. 13 July, 00:15 A.M.
A twenty-eight-year-old young man died, partially immolated, and an abstraction called justice was served.
A thirty-nine-year-old wife and mother was condemned to death by renal failure.
An eighteen-year-old youth was condemned to death by renal failure.
A forty-one-year-old father was condemned to death by liver failure.
A thiry-two-year-old wife was condemned to death by heart failure.
A fifty-four-year-old father was condemned to death by lung failure.
A nineteen-year-old youth was condemned to death by lung failure.
Why did all the others die when a criminal was ceremoniously sacrificed on the altar of justice? In the first place, his organs could have been used specifically to save every one of the above patients almost simultaneously; there was plenty of time for carrying out tissue matches and other necessary laboratory studies. If the inmate's organs were to be used in other patients elsewhere, the resultant shortening of the ominous national waiting list would definitely improve prospects for hypothetical patients and probably rescue them indirectly. No matter how the situation is viewed, it is beyond doubt that the criminal's intention embodied priceless benefits, and that society's blind contempt for him and his autonomy assured conveniently invisible human tragedy of incalculable magnitude."1
The method of execution has somehow always fulfilled the aims of torture and revenge - nowadays surreptitiously - and usually in a highly dramatic way.2
"In the late fifties superb anestesia was available. That eliminated a major hurdle. Also, it would have to be entirely voluntary on the part of the convicts, which is only fair and decent. Thus, respect for the condemned's personal autonomy eliminated another potential problem for my planned crusade. Therefore, I concluded that our death penalty laws can be so worded as to grant condemned criminals a choice between conventional methods of execution and irreversible surgical depth anesthesia for the purpose of medical experimentation; and that anestesia would be induced (just as it is routinely in hospitals every day) at the exact instant set for execution by judicial order.
If the subject's live body were to survive the experiment, then a nonphysician technologist or an authorized lay executioner would cause ultimate death with an overdose of anesthetic agent. A neat and very simple concept - and quite different from euthanasia, because it involves more than merciful killing, and a doctor does it."3
On Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Kevorkian was a strong supporter of human rights. He firmly believed that a person had the right to decide between living a life a suffering or committing suicide, both ending their suffering and maintaining their dignity.
Kevorkian believed that no one deserved to suffer, especially near the end of their life. To him, a state of perpetual suffering, such as that of victims of ALS or a terminal cancer, was a fate worse than death. He often referred to such patients as already dead. In several court cases, Kevorkian would state that the patient he had helped to commit suicide was only "existing," and not really living at all.
Consider a person who has ALS or Lou Gherig's Disease. Someone with this disease suffers from the deterioration of the nervous system. As the disease progresses, the patient becomes paralyzed. They are unable to move their arms and legs, talking becomes extremely difficult, and even simple functions such as breathing and swallowing becomes a struggle. Perhaps the worst part of this debilitating disease is that the patient's mind is completely functional, and so they are completely aware of the world around them but are unable to interact with it in any way. They are a functioning mind trapped inside a body that won't work. In the final stages of ALS, the patient can only lie in bed, and, to be blunt, wait in fear that they will choke on their own saliva. Kevorkian believed that this was no way to go on living, and since there is no cure for ALS and only minimal treatment, the person should be able to choose to end their suffering with the help of a trained physician.
Kevorkian also believed in "death with dignity," that is, the right to choose a peaceful, painless, and respectful death instead of slowly deteriorating.
It is important to add that, much like with his views on capital punishment, Kevorkian was very careful about presenting and carrying out his views on assisted suicide. Each individual patient would go through an interview with Kevorkian. During this interview, Kevorkian would first determine the health of the patient, for instance, making sure the disease is incurable and to see that the patient is indeed suffering. For example, in the case of Thomas Hyde, a man who suffered from ALS, Kevorkian asked Hyde to undergo a brief physical exam consisting of asking Hyde to raise his arms or move his legs. As Hyde attempted to do as Kevorkian asked, he began to suffer from muscle cramps, and was unable to continue. Hyde's speech was also very labored and difficult to understand. After this brief examination, Kevorkian would describe how the suicide, or "Medicide," would happen, stopping frequently to ask if the patient had any questions or problems with the procedure. Finally, Kevorkian would have the patient sign a consent form, proving that they agree to the process. In many cases, Kevorkian would also videotape the interview with his patients.
In quizotically trying to conquer death, doctors all too frequently do no good for their patients' "ease"; but, at the same time, they do harm instead by prolonging and even magnifying patients' dis-ease.4
Common people...must not be forced to die without the dignity and serenity which they also most richly deserve.5
Fortunately, the old common law condemnation of suicide as a crime has been rescinded. Suicide, attempted or successful, is no longer a criminal act. How, then, can assisting someone to perform that legal act be called criminal and illegal?6
But merciful or not, sanctioned or not, [euthanasia] is always negative in our everyday world. It is ultimately a loss - the loss of life - and by definition that is the negativity of detraction. So, euthanasia is and always has been a purely negative concept, no matter how it's done or what qualifying label is put on it. I am trying to persuade society to turn it around into something positive. I believe that death in every category can be merciful and at the same time yield something of real value to the suffering humanity left behind.7
The medical profession's single-minded obsession with the longevity of life has blinded it to other special needs of society and has spawned the inevitable ethical dilemmas now upon us.8
Citations
2. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 49.
3. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 29.
4. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 186.
5. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 189.
6. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 192.
7. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 200-201.
8. Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pg 201.
Sources
Frontline: The Kevorkian Verdict
Kevorkian, Jack. Prescription: Medicide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1991. Pages 17 - 27, 195 - 203.