Jack Kevorkian released from prison [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Brando @$$ Fat

06-01-2007, 07:26 PM

Although I didn't support his imprisonment I do think they should lock him up in a loony bin. It's one thing to believe you're helping people out, but I think this guy is a borderline sociopath the way he doesn't feel bad about it at all. I mean, if I were about to pull the plug on someone, I would feel at least a little shitty about it. But Kevorkian....he did it with over one hundred people, yet he still has that giant shit-eating grin on his face.

Moviefan1234

06-01-2007, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Although I didn't support his imprisonment I do think they should lock him up in a loony bin. It's one thing to believe you're helping people out, but I think this guy is a borderline sociopath the way he doesn't feel bad about it at all. I mean, if I were about to pull the plug on someone, I would feel at least a little shitty about it. But Kevorkian....he did it with over one hundred people, yet he still has that giant shit-eating grin on his face.

I agree. I fully support euthanasia, but this guy creeps me out. I don't think he should have been imprisoned, but he definitely could have used a shrink.

Vong

06-02-2007, 01:58 AM

He obviously doesn't take death seriously, which is exactly what society does. In some way, you can feel happy that you are giving someone exactly what they want; and end to constant suffering.

The Postmaster General

06-02-2007, 03:09 AM

Everyone acts so shocked by what Kevorkian does, but it's not so far fetched from what happens in nursing homes and hospices on a daily basis, maybe even hourly basis. Okay, probably not hourly. Kevorkian just came across as widely unpleasant. End up in a situation where you have stage 4 lymphoma and no way to pay for treatment, and see how cruel you think Whack Jack is.

MadsenOMC

06-02-2007, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
End up in a situation where you have stage 4 lymphoma and no way to pay for treatment, and see how cruel you think Whack Jack is.

Amen. If someone is of sound mind, has a terminal illness and is suffering immense pain, why shouldn't they be allowed to choose to end their own life. Why should people like Lynn and the government be allowed to tell them that they can't do that?

Brando @$$ Fat

06-02-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Amen. If someone is of sound mind, has a terminal illness and is suffering immense pain, why shouldn't they be allowed to choose to end their own life. Why should people like Lynn and the government be allowed to tell them that they can't do that?

Dude don't bring her into this....

MadsenOMC

06-02-2007, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Dude don't bring her into this....

Dude she'll bring herself into this soon enough, with God on her side personally giving her instructions as to what is right and wrong.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-02-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Dude she'll bring herself into this soon enough, with God on her side personally giving her instructions as to what is right and wrong.

I know, but it's not like she's some dictator scorning those beneath her. She's just some person on a message board. That's about it.

MadsenOMC

06-02-2007, 11:45 AM

Um, OK. I was merely making a point and since we all know how she feels about certain issues I felt it was relevant to use her as an example. That's about it.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-02-2007, 11:49 AM

Yeah but you said "people like Lynn and the government," as if the two of them were working hand in hand to eliminate the right to euthanasia.

MadsenOMC

06-02-2007, 11:50 AM

That is not at all what I meant. Please don't assume. They are completely separate. People like her, with beliefs like hers, as well as many people in government. OK? That is what I meant. I don't think that she is working with the government on this.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
That is not at all what I meant. Please don't assume. They are completely separate. People like her, with beliefs like hers, as well as many people in government. OK? That is what I meant. I don't think that she is working with the government on this.

Fair enough...sorry I let this thread get off topic, just didn't know what you meant since it's hard to tell sometimes on the internet.

Anyway, like I was saying, Kevorkian is an insane douchebag but I do think he was doing the right thing.

someguy

06-02-2007, 07:45 PM

I see Madsen is gladly fitting into the politics forum :)

Lynn7

06-02-2007, 09:46 PM

Since my name was mentioned I will bring myself into it but I will leave God out of it.

My opinion is that people should be left to die natural deaths when they do not want to live anymore. I am all for taking out all of the tubes and stuff when someone wants to die. I am all for letting them not take antibiotics or heart meds or taking off the respirator when they are ready to die. Those things are not natural and to me fall under choice.

I am FOR medicating someone terminal for pain to the point of where if it is iffy that the person may die from a little too much pain med that is OK. The important thing is that we keep a terminal patient comfortable.

What I am not for is giving someone a lethal injection so they can die. If they want to off themselves let them do it to themselves as they have done since the beginning of time (suicide). I don't approve of suicide but people can do it without involving the medical community. I see euthanasia as a slippery slope just like abortion in the first 3 months was palatable at one point and then we had people doing partial birth abortions where they shove a knife in a viable baby's brain before they deliver him. If you think euthanasia is always sweetness and light you are not thinking ahead.

Vong

06-02-2007, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Since my name was mentioned I will bring myself into it but I will leave God out of it.

There's a first time for anything...

Lynn7

06-03-2007, 09:56 PM

There's a first time for anything...

Vong, I'm glad my comments were appreciated as an opportunity for you to bash me. It's always great to have a good discussion about issues.

bowieee

06-04-2007, 08:52 PM

This news actually made my day.

bowieee

06-04-2007, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Since my name was mentioned I will bring myself into it but I will leave God out of it.

My opinion is that people should be left to die natural deaths when they do not want to live anymore. I am all for taking out all of the tubes and stuff when someone wants to die. I am all for letting them not take antibiotics or heart meds or taking off the respirator when they are ready to die. Those things are not natural and to me fall under choice.

I am FOR medicating someone terminal for pain to the point of where if it is iffy that the person may die from a little too much pain med that is OK. The important thing is that we keep a terminal patient comfortable.

What I am not for is giving someone a lethal injection so they can die. If they want to off themselves let them do it to themselves as they have done since the beginning of time (suicide). I don't approve of suicide but people can do it without involving the medical community. I see euthanasia as a slippery slope just like abortion in the first 3 months was palatable at one point and then we had people doing partial birth abortions where they shove a knife in a viable baby's brain before they deliver him. If you think euthanasia is always sweetness and light you are not thinking ahead.

Once you begin the Hospice pain relief approach you are doing just that, your giving them a lethal injection but instead of happening at once it happens over weeks. The high levels of Morphine slowly shut down the persons system. Kevorkian just sped up the process. I had a speaker from Hospice come by and give a presentation and believe me they do just what Kevorkian did, just watered down and stretched over time.

If you ask me Kevorkian did more to hurt the Euthanasia rights movement more then help it by using the media spotlight to turn it into his own little circus rather then scientific journals like his peers who have been supporting and practicing it for years but I still admire the hell out of the man.

Lynn7

06-05-2007, 11:35 PM

I have no problem alleviating the pain of someone who has it. I have a problem with killing someone who has pain. I see this as a big difference. There are many treatments that may result in a person's accidental death but the medical profession does not set out to kill people deliberately.

I would never trust a bureacracy with that kind of power and I am suprised anyone would. Especially in a field where there is so much focus on cutting costs.

The Postmaster General

06-06-2007, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I would never trust a bureacracy with that kind of power and I am suprised anyone would. Especially in a field where there is so much focus on cutting costs.

Good point, but using that same sort of devious thinking, wouldn't it be more advantageous to keep a person alive and continue collecting medical expenses? I mean, the field isn't exactly funded by dead people.

Vong

06-06-2007, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I mean, the field isn't exactly funded by dead people.

*suddenly, Vong has an idea*

The Postmaster General

06-06-2007, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Vong
*suddenly, Vong has an idea*

Sideshow Bob already tried it.

Lynn7

06-06-2007, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Good point, but using that same sort of devious thinking, wouldn't it be more advantageous to keep a person alive and continue collecting medical expenses? I mean, the field isn't exactly funded by dead people.

Who is paying for all the medical expenses now? people are booted out of their hospital beds in hardly anytime at all. People who have heart bypasses are home within the week. People with many types of surgeries are treated and released in one day. If the hospitals could make more money from these patients they would. The insurance companies just won't pay. The insurance companies don't want to pay for a lot of things. The hospitals can do some free care and they do but they will not be able to do a lot of it before they go broke. And as the number of older people gets larger and the number of baby's born gets smaller, soon there will be an amazing tax burden on the upcoming youth. Euthanasia will look better and better to the hospitals, the insurance companies and the upcoming tax payers. Have you watched Logan's Run? I think everyone had to be killed on their 30th birthday as i recall for the sake of society.

Vong

06-06-2007, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Sideshow Bob already tried it.

Damn...

:D

The Postmaster General

06-06-2007, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Who is paying for all the medical expenses now? people are booted out of their hospital beds in hardly anytime at all. People who have heart bypasses are home within the week. People with many types of surgeries are treated and released in one day. If the hospitals could make more money from these patients they would. The insurance companies just won't pay. The insurance companies don't want to pay for a lot of things. The hospitals can do some free care and they do but they will not be able to do a lot of it before they go broke. And as the number of older people gets larger and the number of baby's born gets smaller, soon there will be an amazing tax burden on the upcoming youth. Euthanasia will look better and better to the hospitals, the insurance companies and the upcoming tax payers. Have you watched Logan's Run? I think everyone had to be killed on their 30th birthday as i recall for the sake of society.

I'm thinking more in terms of residential care, patients on SSD, and expenses that are usually paid through tax dollars and grants, not regenerative eye surgeries. It's a much smaller percentage - the people who need expensive medical procedures to maintain life. Most people, especially those on the brink of death, need fairly basic cares to sustain. Generally these types of cares are provided through benefit programs and/or grants.

Jim H

06-11-2007, 03:46 PM

I grew up in Michigan when all the crap with Kevorkian was practically daily news. We heard about it constantly. And were constantly updated on his various trials. I even had to put up with his lawyer, Feiger, running for governor (he lost quite badly).

I remember quite well when he was put in prison. There seems to be quite a key misunderstanding of what Kevorkian did. Kevorkian killed ONE person, and he went to jail for 10 years for it. He did it as a sort of statement, and recorded it on camera with the man he killed saying he wanted it done.

In every other case, something like 100, he provided them with a machine which they themselves had to operate, and as I recall, he wasn't even there when it happened. This is part of the reason his trials ended on hung juries. What he did was little different than what many doctors have done - prescribing large amounts of very strong pain meds and looking the other way.

That is, until the last, which ended with his lawyer saying he'd gone too far and a long term jail sentence he barely survived.

I don't really see what Kevorkian has to feel bad about, even if he is bordering on loony.

Euthanasia will look better and better to the hospitals, the insurance companies and the upcoming tax payers.

It's worth noting that there have been places where euthanasia has been legal, and this simply hasn't happened. Just because you can describe a slippery slope doesn't mean it actually exists.

QUENTIN

06-11-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Jim H

It's worth noting that there have been places where euthanasia has been legal, and this simply hasn't happened. Just because you can describe a slippery slope doesn't mean it actually exists.

Well then how come all the places that legalized gay marriage ended up having to marry men to horses, infants, and inanimate objects?

Besides, a key point Lynn is ignoring is that euthanizing someone because they're sick or old or can't pay their hospital bills is an entirely different matter, not even related to assisting someone who wants to die. The key factor is voluntary choice and so long as people make it clear that they want to die, I don't see the difference between assisted suicide, being taken off life support, or the slower and more painful but legal hospice program. The only difference there is is the amount of time a patient has to suffer, and I can't understand an argument that says "I'm okay with terminal patients killing themselves and the medical community helping, but it has to be a long drawn out process"

MadsenOMC

06-11-2007, 05:23 PM

Wait, a man married an infant?

someguy

06-11-2007, 10:59 PM

Can u say Michael Douglas/Catherine Zeta Jones

outsyder

06-11-2007, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Vong
Damn...

:D

Don't worry. It worked for Jack Kennedy.

QUENTIN

06-12-2007, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Wait, a man married an infant?

I was being facetious.

Lynn's spurious argument that if we let people like Jack Kevorkian assist terminal patients who want to die now instead of suffering through more agonizing pain and dying later, then hospitals or doctors or the government will just start offing patients willy nilly if they can't afford healthcare holds as much water as the equally asinine argument that if we permit homosexual citizens the same legal privileges as heterosexual citizens then suddenly "We'll have to let people marry their mothers and animals and Gameboys."

In other words, I was echoing Jim H's accurate assertion that "Just because you can describe a slippery slope doesn't mean it actually exists" which ends up nullifying most of the modern Republican social platform.

Jim H

06-12-2007, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I was being facetious.

Lynn's spurious argument that if we let people like Jack Kevorkian assist terminal patients who want to die now instead of suffering through more agonizing pain and dying later, then hospitals or doctors or the government will just start offing patients willy nilly if they can't afford healthcare holds as much water as the equally asinine argument that if we permit homosexual citizens the same legal privileges as heterosexual citizens then suddenly "We'll have to let people marry their mothers and animals and Gameboys."

In other words, I was echoing Jim H's accurate assertion that "Just because you can describe a slippery slope doesn't mean it actually exists" which ends up nullifying most of the modern Republican social platform.

Looking back, I'm kind of proud of that quote. :D

MadsenOMC

06-12-2007, 11:11 AM

Lynn7

06-12-2007, 07:42 PM

History has shown the inevitability of the slippery slope- it is part of human nature. And life is not valued anymore and especially old or sick life.

Jim H

06-13-2007, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
History has shown the inevitability of the slippery slope- it is part of human nature. And life is not valued anymore and especially old or sick life.

Calling something a slippery slope isn't a convincing argument in and of itself. Further, you seem to also have no idea how euthanasia (or assisted suicide) is consented to in various places. It is not a simple matter of signing a form. It is relatively simple to prevent the type of abuses you infer will happen.

You can already pull the plug on life support legally. Why do you not see a slippery slope with that?

shoe1985

06-13-2007, 08:59 AM

Everybody made some great points here. Jim and QUENTIN, you again provided excellent and interesting reads. I agree with you two. If I am dying of say cancer, and if I could take a pill or a shot to kill me before I suffer, I would do it. I could spend some time with my family and go out the way I want too. You could say it is playing god, but would god want us to suffer? Plus, god put the stuff on Earth for a reason. So, we are not playing god, but using what god gave us to get closer to him sooner.

Lynn7

06-13-2007, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Jim H
Calling something a slippery slope isn't a convincing argument in and of itself. Further, you seem to also have no idea how euthanasia (or assisted suicide) is consented to in various places. It is not a simple matter of signing a form. It is relatively simple to prevent the type of abuses you infer will happen.

You can already pull the plug on life support legally. Why do you not see a slippery slope with that?

My argument, essentially, is that I do not trust people with that kind of power. What the paperwork is and how it is handled in the future is two different things.

I have no problem with pulling the plug or not giving meds and treatments. We can stop doing anything that is not natural. Comfort care. That is fine with me. I am all for natural death. I am not for killing people.

How's this for a slippery slope? An abortion is done but the baby is born alive. The baby is not attended to but allowed to sit aside until it dies. It may be viable. A killing. This has happened quite a few times. The object of the abortion is to kill the baby. They do not want it to live if it can.

A person wants an abortion-late term. So intead of taking the baby out, the doctor first wants to stick a sharp instrument in its brain. Huh?! Yeah, I want to trust these kinds of doctors with human life.

Vong

06-13-2007, 06:27 PM

It's funny....

When animals are either too sick and dying, or in large amounts of pain, we put them down because it is the "humane" thing to do.

But when humans are too sick and dying, or in large amounts of pain, we'd rather prolong their suffering than give them a "humane" death...

How is it that animals get better options than humans do?

Jim H

06-15-2007, 02:41 PM

How's this for a slippery slope? An abortion is done but the baby is born alive. The baby is not attended to but allowed to sit aside until it dies. It may be viable. A killing. This has happened quite a few times. The object of the abortion is to kill the baby. They do not want it to live if it can.

A person wants an abortion-late term. So intead of taking the baby out, the doctor first wants to stick a sharp instrument in its brain. Huh?! Yeah, I want to trust these kinds of doctors with human life.

Congratulations. You slid down the slope straight into a strawman. :)