Since I wasn't there and didn't get to speak to the patients, their families, and their physicians, I can only base my opinion on what I have observed in the media. From what I have seen, I totally disapprove of Kevorkian's method of performing euthanasia. In certain cases, some patients experience such tremendous suffering that euthanasia should be an option.
Take for example someone with terminal bone cancer. It's a crippling disease because any little bump on the surface she's on can send tidal waves of pain throughout her body. Is it right to allow someone to suffer like this? After all, we put animals out of their misery all the time so shouldn't people be deserving of the same relief? What about someone with Lou Gehrig's disease? Hopefully I have the right disease here but it leaves you physically crippled and helpless well before you die. Is it right to trap someone in a violently twitching body while their mind is perfectly coherent and rational? Would you want to someday watch yourself urinating and defecating without control, your limbs flailing wildly everywhere, people staring at you like you're a freak? I doubt it. Is death the best choice? I don't know, but unless it's me who's suffering, it's not for me to decide. It's the patient's decision.
What I don't like about Kevorkian's methods is that he most likely should not be performing [for lack of a better term] the deed. If it's going to take place, then it should be by a physician who has known the patient for a long time, not someone who has spent a few hours with the patient and decided that euthanasia is okay. In some of Kevorkian's suicides, it is entirely possible that the patient's physician went to Kevorkian because he himself felt uncomfortable with performing the act. If this was the case, then what was done may have been appropriate. However, this does not seem to be the case with Kevorkian. To me, it seemed more like Kevorkian was running a drive-thru euthanasia joint. Anyone who was dying could come by for his services, regardless of whether or not he or she was suffering. It euthanasia is to be permitted, there must be numerous safeguards.
First, a minimum of 2 physicians, one of whom must be someone that is close to the patient, must agree that the patient is suffering tremendously or will in the immediate future and that death is the only humane altrenative. All psychological causes for the desire for suicide must be eliminated. There must be a short waiting period, anywhere from a week to several weeks but depending on the situation. People who become paralyzed often want to commit suicide but with time and therapy, they come to realize that life can still be complete. This opportunity of realization must also be provided to these patients. The patient's reasons for choosing suicide must be legitimate. It cannot be because she does not want to burden her family. Be suspicious if family members are overly aggressive in insisting on euthanasia. Make sure that they will not benefit from the patient's death. Most of all, make it an easing and comforting experience. Do not sensationalize it like Kevorkian. The end result may be attention given to the issue by the media but remember that a life has just been lost. While it may be good that someone was put out of his pain, don't forget that a patient has just died.
[This message has been edited by justwannabadoc (edited April 15, 1999).]
