I am in extremely strong disagreement with the April 21 staff editorial titled "Kevorkian stands for life." The issue involved here is not merely a flippant question about whether or not he will be remembered audaciously in the future, but whether or not his actions are in fact criminal in both the legal and moral senses.
First, while bucking the system is often a very admirable activity, it is not always the right decision. Regardless of an individual's view of assisted suicide, there is a huge problem with allowing a member of the medical profession (a person who has vowed to do no harm) to help a patient die. The taking of a life is the essence of harm, and to attempt to justify it by saying it decreases pain is simply not a logical belief; the responsibility of a doctor is primarily to cure, secondarily to relieve pain. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has broken his oath over 130 times in the past 10 years, and that action is reprehensible regardless of a person's view on assisted suicide.
Second, if human existence is worth preserving at all, then it must be worth preserving always. The moment you convince a group that they are no longer worthy of life (either because they're poor, or disabled, or old, or sick, or in pain, etc.) you are in reality saying that circumstances have made them inferior. It is an insult to all human beings to maintain any person should seek death when in great pain; existence is not ultimately about some utilitarian idea that life is only worth living if it is pleasurable. The real tragedy is not even what Kevorkian has done so much as it is that so much of America has bought into this idea that pleasure is all that matters. The people who have chosen to be murdered have been deceived by modern society into believing that a painful existence is worthless; some of the most amazing figures in history, such as St. Francis of Assisi, have been made even more so because of the terrible pain they have undergone.
It is through pain that we discover what we are made of and what we can be, and it is terrible to allow a person in pain to think that death would be a better alternative than what they are experiencing.
Third, I personally suspect that Kevorkian is a madman who has found a way to become a hero. Rather than show his compassion, his actions should show us that he has a desire to kill. He may hide it in rhetoric tailored to convince people that he is justified because he only takes the lives of those who want to die. However, his actions indicate it is the killing and the flaunting that he truly cares about.
Like many serial killers, Kevorkian has a desire to show his victims to others. I believe it is THIS impulse, not some benevolent desire to better the system, that caused him to have the suicide broadcast.
I even wonder if his ex-lawyer has finally come to this realization as well, and that this realization played a large part in why he wouldn't represent Kevorkian in the recent trial. After all, if he still believes Kevorkian's actions are so noble, shouldn't he have tried his best to defend him from the outdated judicial system?
When Diversity Becomes Intolerant
The Value of Human Life
Faith in Organized Religion
Kevorkian: A True Criminal
OTHER COLUMNS:
The First Column