Kevorkian out of prison after 8 years

[kfrost06]

COLDWATER, Mich. - Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist dubbed "Dr. Death" for claims that he participated in at least 130 assisted suicides, left prison after eight years Friday still believing people have the right to die.

A smiling Kevorkian said it was "one of the high points of life" as he walked out with his attorney and "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace.

Inmates inside the prison had been milling about all morning for a glimpse of the 79-year-old, while reporters and television vans greeted him on the outside with cameras and questions.

Kevorkian attorney Mayer Morganroth said his client planned a news conference next week.

Throughout the 1990s, Kevorkian challenged authorities to make his actions legal — or try to stop him. He burned state orders against him and showed up at court in costume.

"You think I'm going to obey the law? You're crazy," he said in 1998 shortly before he was accused — and then convicted — of murder after injecting lethal drugs into Thomas Youk, 52, an Oakland County man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease.

That conviction earned Kevorkian a 10- to 25-year sentence for second degree murder, but he earned time off his sentence for good behavior.

He is expected to now move to Bloomfield Hills, just outside Detroit, where he will live with friends and resume the artistic and musical hobbies he missed in prison. His lawyer and friends have said he plans to live on a small pension and Social Security while doing some writing and make some speeches.

Kevorkian has promised never to help in another assisted suicide. But Ruth Holmes, who has worked as his legal assistant and handled his correspondence while he was in prison, said his views on the subject haven't changed.

"This should be a matter that is handled as a fundamental human right that is between the patient, the doctor, his family and his God," Holmes said of Kevorkian's beliefs.

In a recent interview, Kevorkian also made it clear that his support for letting people decide when they want to die hasn't wavered.

"It's got to be legalized. That's the point," he told WJBK-TV in Detroit. "I'll work to have it legalized. But I won't break any laws doing it."

The Michigan Catholic Conference says it will oppose any effort to renew the push for assisted suicide in Michigan.

The state has had a law banning assisted suicide since 1998, the same year voters rejected a ballot proposal that would have made physician-assisted suicide legal for terminally ill patients.

Right to Life of Michigan, which also opposes any effort to allow assisted suicide, said it distrusts Kevorkian's promise to not help anyone else die. "He made similar false promises prior to a string of deaths, the last of which led to his imprisonment," the group said in a statement this week.

Oregon is the only state in the nation in which a terminally ill patient with six months or less to live can legally ask a doctor to prescribe a lethal amount of medication.

Kevorkian will be on parole for two years, and one of the conditions he must meet is that he can't help anyone else die. He is also prohibited from providing care for anyone who is older than 62 or is disabled. He could go back to prison if he violates his parole.

He will report regularly to a parole officer and won't be able to leave the state without permission. He can speak about assisted suicide, but can't show people how to make a machine like one he invented to give lethal drugs to those who wanted to die, ***artment of Corrections spokesman Russ Marlan said.

Kevorkian did not have many possessions to take out of prison with him, in part because many of them have disappeared.

"Strange as this may seem, last month ... someone stole his manuscript he'd been writing and his belongings," Morganroth said, adding that he expects someone took Kevorkian's clothes and medicine to sell on eBay.

Holmes said Kevorkian was looking forward to eating some of the things he couldn't freely get in prison, including a sandwich of plain sliced turkey on thin lavosh bread.

"He's looking forward to some grapes and apricots," she said. "He loves pistachios."

Working with Kevorkian, Holmes already has sent to a book publisher about 250 of the thousands of letters he got while in prison.

"He wasn't able to answer all of them, but it was very heartwarming to see the number of people who wrote to him from all over the world," she said.

Geoffrey Fieger, Kevorkian's former attorney, said that once Kevorkian is off probation, he should continue assisting people who want to commit suicide.

"He's on a short leash for the next two years," Fieger said Friday. "After that, it will be another story. After two years, he no longer is going to be under their thumb."

[kfrost06]

No matter what you call it, assited suicide, euthanasia, or some other PC word it is still murder. This mass murderer should be in prison for life to protect the old, weak, sick, and vulnerable. How long before he "strikes" again?

[BgMc31]

No matter what you call it, assited suicide, euthanasia, or some other PC word it is still murder. This mass murderer should be in prison for life to protect the old, weak, sick, and vulnerable. How long before he "strikes" again?

That is absurb! He assisted those wanting to end their suffering. A mass murderer is someone who kills people who are not willing to die. You are drawing the parallels between him and Jeffrey Dahmer, or if you want to get technical, a mass murderer is different from a serial killer. So you are comparing him to the Columbine kids or the Virginia Tech killer? Those were both mass murderers.

We have the right to live, but we also should have the right to die with dignity and to end our own suffering. He wasn't doing anything against anyone's will.

[feiticiera]

I agree. If people are coming from a sound stae of mind and they truley want to end their OWN misery...why not

[BITTAPART2]

LOL I am actualy related to him, he is my fathers 2nd cousin.

[kfrost06]

I agree. If people are coming from a sound stae of mind and they truley want to end their OWN misery...why not

These people are not of a sound mind, they are sick, ill they need comfort not death by some sicko masquerading as a doctor.

[kfrost06]

That is absurb! He assisted those wanting to end their suffering. A mass murderer is someone who kills people who are not willing to die. You are drawing the parallels between him and Jeffrey Dahmer, or if you want to get technical, a mass murderer is different from a serial killer. So you are comparing him to the Columbine kids or the Virginia Tech killer? Those were both mass murderers.

We have the right to live, but we also should have the right to die with dignity and to end our own suffering. He wasn't doing anything against anyone's will.

mass murderer:A person, especially a political or military leader, who is responsible for the deaths of many individuals.

He is responsible for many deaths. He is even worse because he preys on the weak and sick.

[RA]

Always like the parodies Bob and Tom did...good ol doctor death.

[spywizard]

These people are not of a sound mind, they are sick, ill they need comfort not death by some sicko masquerading as a doctor.

they are not sound of mind????

so the government makes that decission and controls the quality of life of a person..

ya know, if you inject 3 cc of air into your vein, it will kill you..

did i just assist you in ending your life??

It's the same thing..

[kfrost06]

ya know, if you inject 3 cc of air into your vein, it will kill you..

did i just assist you in ending your life??

It's the same thing..

No, it's not the same thing, a book or internet could have supplied that info. Now, if your my doctor and you tell me my life is hopeless, you hand me a needle full of air(3ccs) show me how and where to inject it and then watch as I did it, then it's the same thing. Would you really do that to someone? Even if they asked you to? Doctors encounter "hopeless" cases often, they should not kill them off.

[BgMc31]

These people are not of a sound mind, they are sick, ill they need comfort not death by some sicko masquerading as a doctor.

Are you saying that all sick people aren't of sound mind? My father-in-law is suffering, literally suffering and wasting away from lung and liver cancer and he is of complete sound mind, just not body. If he chose to end his own life to end the suffering (which we all see) then that is his perogative. This is isn't masquerading as a doctor, he is a doctor.

Also with your definition of mass murderer you neglected to put the second definition which is the clinical definition of mass murderer and that is someone who kills a mulitude of people in a single incident. But again that's symantics. This man isn't going around killing people because of some sick fetish. He isn't killing people who they themselves are not expecting to die. He is carrying out the will of these people, not fulfilling some twisted fantasy of his own by taking unsuspecting lives.

[RA]

I used to be very conflicted on this subject until my wife became an ICU nurse. She said doesnt matter what people have, they can keep them out of or very low amounts of pain...I just dont see a need to have a kevorkian.

Are you saying that all sick people aren't of sound mind? My father-in-law is suffering, literally suffering and wasting away from lung and liver cancer and he is of complete sound mind, just not body. If he chose to end his own life to end the suffering (which we all see) then that is his perogative. This is isn't masquerading as a doctor, he is a doctor.

Also with your definition of mass murderer you neglected to put the second definition which is the clinical definition of mass murderer and that is someone who kills a mulitude of people in a single incident. But again that's symantics. This man isn't going around killing people because of some sick fetish. He isn't killing people who they themselves are not expecting to die. He is carrying out the will of these people, not fulfilling some twisted fantasy of his own by taking unsuspecting lives.

[BgMc31]

No, it's not the same thing, a book or internet could have supplied that info. Now, if your my doctor and you tell me my life is hopeless, you hand me a needle full of air(3ccs) show me how and where to inject it and then watch as I did it, then it's the same thing. Would you really do that to someone? Even if they asked you to? Doctors encounter "hopeless" cases often, they should not kill them off.

Who are you to say what they should or should not do in that situation. That is up to the doctor. There are doctors that don't perform a multitude of procedures because of their beliefs. This is not dissimilar from those. If a patient ask a doctor to help end his own life and the doctor isn't comfortable doing that, then that is between the doctor and patient. But if a doctor is comfortable and sympathetic to his patients will then he should be able to help that person in a humane way. Many people who are suffering commit suicide or attempt suicide, with many harmful side effects (including disfigurement, increased pain, etc), since they were going to do it anyway, what's the harm in someone assisting them to do it in a way that limits their end suffering?

[BgMc31]

I used to be very conflicted on this subject until my wife became an ICU nurse. She said doesnt matter what people have, they can keep them out of or very low amounts of pain...I just dont see a need to have a kevorkian.

I understand what your wife is saying, but shouldn't it be up to the patient? Sure you can dope someone up to the point where they feel no pain, but what kind of quality of life is that to basically drug someone up to the point of a persistant vegatative state? I would rather die that to continue to exist (because IMO, that's not living) in such a state.

[RA]

I understand what your wife is saying, but shouldn't it be up to the patient? Sure you can dope someone up to the point where they feel no pain, but what kind of quality of life is that to basically drug someone up to the point of a persistant vegatative state? I would rather die that to continue to exist (because IMO, that's not living) in such a state.

Yeah, I might think differently if it were a long term thing but normally when people are that bad off...it doesnt last long. I already told her that if Im on a vent and not coming back dont waste time taking it out.

[BgMc31]

Yeah, I might think differently if it were a long term thing but normally when people are that bad off...it doesnt last long. I already told her that if Im on a vent and not coming back dont waste time taking it out.

You bring up an interesting point Roid...

KFrost if someone is on a ventilator and it's against there wishes and the doctor takes him/her off, is that not assisting in their death. Is that doctor or family member some psycho?

[kfrost06]

You bring up an interesting point Roid...

KFrost if someone is on a ventilator and it's against there wishes and the doctor takes him/her off, is that not assisting in their death. Is that doctor or family member some psycho?

An interesting topic but off topic off this thread.

[kfrost06]

Who are you to say what they should or should not do in that situation. That is up to the doctor.

It's not me, there is something called the Hippocratic Oath which Doctors swear to and contains the following..."To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

The topic here is the actions of Doctor Death who from the article above...""You think I'm going to obey the law? You're crazy," he said in 1998 shortly before he was accused — and then convicted — of murder after injecting lethal drugs into Thomas Youk, 52, an Oakland County man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease."

He does not and should not have the power to KILL! He is a murderer.

[kfrost06]

Who are you to say what they should or should not do in that situation. That is up to the doctor.

Tell me, who should have that say, the insurance companies? they basicly tell the doctors now which procedures to preform or drop that doctor from their plan.

A doctors job is to do his best to heal individuals to the best of his/her ability NOT to murder them because they are diseased.

[RamyGras]

An interesting topic but off topic off this thread.

It's not that much off topic. It very much relates to what is being discussed. What is your position on this, if you don't mind my asking?

[nalbano34]

It's not me, there is something called the Hippocratic Oath which Doctors swear to and contains the following..."To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

Not prescribe a deadly drug ehh? I have known people prescribed methadone, zanax, and a host of other "deadly drugs". They may not be cyanide tabs, but they are deadly and many prescription drugs are probably the cause of thousands of suicides annually.

[kfrost06]

It's not that much off topic. It very much relates to what is being discussed. What is your position on this, if you don't mind my asking?

I do think it is way off topic and I am on both sides of the issue(said like a true politician) but first, if the person in question has a living will then that will should be respected. Other than that I think it would be a case by case call. That is, sometimes yes sometimes no. It raises all types of ethical questions, is the plug being pulled to give the organs to others that need them(is this effecting the decision of the doctor), to cut cost of health care(having the plug pulled because the relatives are poor is wrong), is the preson(female) being kept alive to harvest their eggs or(male) sperm so the parents/spouse can have a grandchild/child, could science advance enough in the next decade to revive the person, etc etc. all of which are issues, further more if the "plug" is pulled or not, who decides, the husband(wife), the parents, the children, what if they all have different motives. There was a case where the state DA wanted the plug pulled so he could charge a perpetrator with murder instead of attempted murder, so many different issues so many variables hence the case by case call.

To me it is not a simple yes or no answer. Giving a doctor the power to kill you is a simple answer, NO WAY!

[nalbano34]

I would also have to say that pain is not the only reasoning for people wanting to end their existence. Considering so many people on this board are into their physical prowess, imagine that being taken from you. The ability to walk, talk, eat!!!! I think I would choose the "easy" way out.

[kfrost06]

Not prescribe a deadly drug ehh? I have known people prescribed methadone, zanax, and a host of other "deadly drugs". They may not be cyanide tabs, but they are deadly and many prescription drugs are probably the cause of thousands of suicides annually.

Those drugs have a medical purpose and are not and should not be prescriped for the purpuse of causing ones death. Yes, some drugs taken incorrectly can cause death and are strictly controlled, no doctor would give such drugs to someone with the intent to kill unless he was a murderer.

for the record xanax is NOT deadly and is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on. You have to mix it with a narcotic and/or alcohol to die. That is, no amount of xanax will kill you, not even 10,000mg.

[Mike Dura]

I disagree completely. Murder is when you take the life of someone who wants to live. Euthanasia is consensual and in Kevorkians case, it was done when the person was terminally ill and needlesly suffering. That's quite a distinction. Day is when there is light from the sun. Night is the absense of light (there's exceptions to that of course). Some things are all too clear and this is an easy one. How can anyone miss the distinction.

No matter what you call it, assited suicide, euthanasia, or some other PC word it is still murder. This mass murderer should be in prison for life to protect the old, weak, sick, and vulnerable. How long before he "strikes" again?

[Mike Dura]

In that case, let's think a little deeper about it. Imagine you were terminally ill with no hope of survival and you were in agony. Sometimes the "easy way out" is one and the same as the humane way out.

I would also have to say that pain is not the only reasoning for people wanting to end their existence. Considering so many people on this board are into their physical prowess, imagine that being taken from you. The ability to walk, talk, eat!!!! I think I would choose the "easy" way out.

[Mike Dura]

Granted, but there should be a system created that would allow a person needlessly suffering to choose to end that suffering. The doc shouldn't be the sole decision (then again, the person went to him for his help) maker but when there is no system in place and there is suffering now, something needs to be done. Kevorkian may have been a narccistic egomaniac (or not) but what he did was ultimately humane. People have the right to choose and I would never choose needless suffering. If those who disagree suffered that way, I'm sure they'd see the light then and only then.

I do think it is way off topic and I am on both sides of the issue(said like a true politician) but first, if the person in question has a living will then that will should be respected. Other than that I think it would be a case by case call. That is, sometimes yes sometimes no. It raises all types of ethical questions, is the plug being pulled to give the organs to others that need them(is this effecting the decision of the doctor), to cut cost of health care(having the plug pulled because the relatives are poor is wrong), is the preson(female) being kept alive to harvest their eggs or(male) sperm so the parents/spouse can have a grandchild/child, could science advance enough in the next decade to revive the person, etc etc. all of which are issues, further more if the "plug" is pulled or not, who decides, the husband(wife), the parents, the children, what if they all have different motives. There was a case where the state DA wanted the plug pulled so he could charge a perpetrator with murder instead of attempted murder, so many different issues so many variables hence the case by case call.

To me it is not a simple yes or no answer. Giving a doctor the power to kill you is a simple answer, NO WAY!

[kfrost06]

I disagree completely. Murder is when you take the life of someone who wants to live. Euthanasia is consensual and in Kevorkians case, it was done when the person was terminally ill and needlesly suffering. That's quite a distinction. Day is when there is light from the sun. Night is the absense of light (there's exceptions to that of course). Some things are all too clear and this is an easy one. How can anyone miss the distinction.

Murder is taking a life period. Everyone has had a moment when we wondered. For some it has been a very tough decision, here's a good example,

On May 27, 1995, Christopher Reeve was paralyzed from the neck-down, after his horse had a refusal and he fell off. After five days, he regained full consciousness, and Dr. John Jane explained that he had destroyed his first and second cervical vertebrae, which meant that his head and spine were not connected. His lungs were filling with fluid and were suctioned by entry through the throat; this was the most painful part of Reeve's recovery.
After considering his situation, believing that not only would he never walk again, but that he may never move a body part again, Reeve considered suicide. He mouthed to Dana, "maybe we should let me go." He went so far as to beg to be taken out.

I think most would want the same thing, to be "let go". Reeves lived a productive and active life for another 9+ years and his list of accomplishments in that short time out shine what most do in their entire life! Had he had a Dr. Death he, his wife and the whole country would have lost out. Reeves said after that night of begging to be taken out and listening to his wifes tearful objections he never considered suicide again.

[Mike Dura]

It's fun to get all hypothetical but it's more to the heart of the matter to consider human suffering and the right to choose ending that suffering. Let's stick to the essentials in such a sensitive matter.

I do think it is way off topic and I am on both sides of the issue(said like a true politician) but first, if the person in question has a living will then that will should be respected. Other than that I think it would be a case by case call. That is, sometimes yes sometimes no. It raises all types of ethical questions, is the plug being pulled to give the organs to others that need them(is this effecting the decision of the doctor), to cut cost of health care(having the plug pulled because the relatives are poor is wrong), is the preson(female) being kept alive to harvest their eggs or(male) sperm so the parents/spouse can have a grandchild/child, could science advance enough in the next decade to revive the person, etc etc. all of which are issues, further more if the "plug" is pulled or not, who decides, the husband(wife), the parents, the children, what if they all have different motives. There was a case where the state DA wanted the plug pulled so he could charge a perpetrator with murder instead of attempted murder, so many different issues so many variables hence the case by case call.

To me it is not a simple yes or no answer. Giving a doctor the power to kill you is a simple answer, NO WAY!

[Mike Dura]

Again, there's a clear and profound distinction between murder and assisted suicide. No doubt. As far as the story goes, he changed his mind by putting aside his self-interest (ending suffering) to choosing another self-interest (suffering but staying alive for his family). It's a good case to bring up though because it shows that things are not so black and white. But murder and assisted suicide are clearly distinct by definition.

Murder is taking a life period. Everyone has had a moment when we wondered. For some it has been a very tough decision, here's a good example,

On May 27, 1995, Christopher Reeve was paralyzed from the neck-down, after his horse had a refusal and he fell off. After five days, he regained full consciousness, and Dr. John Jane explained that he had destroyed his first and second cervical vertebrae, which meant that his head and spine were not connected. His lungs were filling with fluid and were suctioned by entry through the throat; this was the most painful part of Reeve's recovery.
After considering his situation, believing that not only would he never walk again, but that he may never move a body part again, Reeve considered suicide. He mouthed to Dana, "maybe we should let me go." He went so far as to beg to be taken out.

I think most would want the same thing, to be "let go". Reeves lived a productive and active life for another 9+ years and his list of accomplishments in that short time out shine what most do in their entire life! Had he had a Dr. Death he, his wife and the whole country would have lost out. Reeves said after that night of begging to be taken out and listening to his wifes tearful objections he never considered suicide again.

[kfrost06]

So basicly we differ on our opinion of murder. It is an often debated topic, in the most simple terms, taking a life is murder. In more complex terms one would have to consider the following, euthanasia, abortion, war, self-defense, execution, DWI car accident, etc Do these fall under the catorgory of muder? Each one raises it's own debate. I am not saying there is no such thing as justified murder but to debate any further we must define murder.

Anyway, I gotta go, I will look forward to any response tonight/tomorrow. Have a great weekend!

[Mike Dura]

Not quite. Simply look up the word murder and then look up the word suicide. Definitions are often individualized but in this case you can refer to a public definition and there should also be a legal definition given too. That should make it clear. You can stick with your own definition dispite that but be clear that it is distinct from a legal and public definition - kind of like being estranged IMO.

So basicly we differ on our opinion of murder. It is an often debated topic, in the most simple terms, taking a life is murder. In more complex terms one would have to consider the following, euthanasia, abortion, war, self-defense, execution, DWI car accident, etc Do these fall under the catorgory of muder? Each one raises it's own debate. I am not saying there is no such thing as justified murder but to debate any further we must define murder.

Anyway, I gotta go, I will look forward to any response tonight/tomorrow. Have a great weekend!

[BgMc31]

Murder is not simply ending someone's life. Murder is the following:Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

If a firefighter accidentally kills someone while trying to save their life (pulling them out a fire and drops them), you consider him a murderer? Again, your view of murder is oversimplified. Their are different levels of killing, accidentally or otherwise. Either way, Kevorkian isn't a murderer.

[BgMc31]

I do think it is way off topic and I am on both sides of the issue(said like a true politician) but first, if the person in question has a living will then that will should be respected. Other than that I think it would be a case by case call. That is, sometimes yes sometimes no. It raises all types of ethical questions, is the plug being pulled to give the organs to others that need them(is this effecting the decision of the doctor), to cut cost of health care(having the plug pulled because the relatives are poor is wrong), is the preson(female) being kept alive to harvest their eggs or(male) sperm so the parents/spouse can have a grandchild/child, could science advance enough in the next decade to revive the person, etc etc. all of which are issues, further more if the "plug" is pulled or not, who decides, the husband(wife), the parents, the children, what if they all have different motives. There was a case where the state DA wanted the plug pulled so he could charge a perpetrator with murder instead of attempted murder, so many different issues so many variables hence the case by case call.

To me it is not a simple yes or no answer. Giving a doctor the power to kill you is a simple answer, NO WAY!

My question was not off topic. It's a similar situation that applies. Anyway, if I place in my will to have my life ended if I am not conscious it's ok, but I cannot state that desire when I am conscious? It doesn't make much sense.

[nalbano34]

for the record xanax is NOT deadly and is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on. You have to mix it with a narcotic and/or alcohol to die. That is, no amount of xanax will kill you, not even 10,000mg.

Overdose of alprazolam has been shown to cause somnolence, confusion, impaired coordination, diminished reflexes, and coma, as well as death. Fatality is made much more likely by the intake of alcohol. granted it would take a helluva lot, and I was wrong........but there is an L.D. 50 for it. Maybe I picked a bad drug to make my point, but you get what I was saying.

[Mike Dura]

Right on! Some of these people confuse me! LoL. My mom is an oversimplifier too. That's why I stay clear of nuanced topics with her. And it seems the simpler the thoughts the higher the confidence! I looked into that too (a little off topic but what the hey). The discounting principle (social sciences) basically says that the less ways one has to look at things the more salient (and therefore confident) that one view (or answer) is to that person.

Murder is not simply ending someone's life. Murder is the following:Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

If a firefighter accidentally kills someone while trying to save their life (pulling them out a fire and drops them), you consider him a murderer? Again, your view of murder is oversimplified. Their are different levels of killing, accidentally or otherwise. Either way, Kevorkian isn't a murderer.

[kfrost06]

Either way, Kevorkian isn't a murderer.

The state of Michigan disagrees with you...

"That conviction earned Kevorkian a 10- to 25-year sentence for second degree murder, but he earned time off his sentence for good behavior."

He knowingly pre-meditated with intent to murder injected "lethal drugs into Thomas Youk, 52, an Oakland County man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease."

legally that is murder, you may call it what ever you want the fact remains he still murdered that man.

[kfrost06]

Right on! Some of these people confuse me! LoL. My mom is an oversimplifier too. That's why I stay clear of nuanced topics with her. And it seems the simpler the thoughts the higher the confidence! I looked into that too (a little off topic but what the hey). The discounting principle (social sciences) basically says that the less ways one has to look at things the more salient (and therefore confident) that one view (or answer) is to that person.

Mike, my point is that there is a grey area. yes there is murder we can agree on and there is death caused by someone else that we can agree is not murder. What we have here is a debate over the grey area. You say it's o.k. to kill someone if they want you to, I say that is murder.

[Mike Dura]

It's a degree of murder granted but laws are subject to change as they should be. This is a case where there needs to be some change.

I guess it's easy to get hung up in semantics and to cite legal definitions (segregation had a legal definition too) misses the essentials. The bottom line is when a person is suffering badly and the quality of life is affected deeply and he or she is suffering badly, that person should have the right to decide for him or herself whether to continue life or end it. A doctor helping them do this ensures that it goes smoother and more humane than other methods. That's really the heart of the matter and it's undeniable. If you were suffering deeply with no end in sight then you'd truly understand and I'm sure agree.

The state of Michigan disagrees with you...

"That conviction earned Kevorkian a 10- to 25-year sentence for second degree murder, but he earned time off his sentence for good behavior."

He knowingly pre-meditated with intent to murder injected "lethal drugs into Thomas Youk, 52, an Oakland County man suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease."

legally that is murder, you may call it what ever you want the fact remains he still murdered that man.

[Mike Dura]

I said nothing to indicate that I didn't understand your point. The point was taken. I was just off topic with "oversimplification" in mind. That should be it's own thread because it's way too common.

Mike, my point is that there is a grey area. yes there is murder we can agree on and there is death caused by someone else that we can agree is not murder. What we have here is a debate over the grey area. You say it's o.k. to kill someone if they want you to, I say that is murder.