Wtf?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/12/politics/main3928911.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3928911

From the link:

He was released from prison in June 2007 after serving the minimum of his 10- to 25-year sentence for second-degree murder in Youk's death. He spent eight years and 2½ months behind bars after earning time off for good behavior.

To serve in Congress, the Constitution requires someone to be 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for seven years and to reside in the state they would represent, but it does not prevent a convicted felon from seeking office.


Thoughts?

What is your opinion? After serving their sentences, should people rejoin society or live apart from it?

What is your opinion? After serving their sentences, should people rejoin society or live apart from it?


I think they should join society but I'm not sure if a convicted felon should be governing over/representing anyone in congress.

I may feel differently if it were Vehicular Homicide or something less radical.

I think they should join society but I'm not sure if a convicted felon should be governing over/representing anyone in congress.

I may feel differently if it were Vehicular Homicide or something less radical.

So you think a person who mows down people is a better representative of yourself than one who helps terminally ill people to end their suffering?

In each of the above mentioned cases, the individuals themselves allegedly took the final action which resulted in their own deaths. Kevorkian allegedly assisted only by attaching the individual to a device that he had made. The individual then pushed a button which released the drugs or chemicals that would end his or her own life.After all, euthanasia is legal in some places, but I don't recall any place where vehicular manslaughter was considered alright

So you think a person who mows down people is a better representative of yourself than one who helps terminally ill people to end their suffering?

Yes, because it's generally accidental.

This is not some family doctor that has been with "Joe" for 30 years making a tough decision. He seeks out people to kill. He craves attention for it and many of these acts of "mercy" have no one to account the events except DR.Jack.

I think USAmerican opinions on Dr. Kevorkian can be particularly revealing of how independent those opinions are. His trial was a milestone in great media circuses, probably not surpassed in hype until 9-11. Major US media imprinted so much programming so effectively, that nearly a decade later, buzzwords like "Dr. Death" and Suicide Jack" are much more easily-evoked than is serious thought about the issues that Kr. Kevorkian sacrificed so much to bring into the national debate. Major media corporations come to seize on issues that can easily be amplified and reverberated into a chorus of outrage- mindless rabble-rousing on the grandest scale in history. Dr. Kevorkian's story was one of those cases, when the media made a lot of advertising money through sensationalizing a story that could push all the right buttons.

For those USAmericans who were most victimized by this profitable spinning, a lot of imprinting happened, with very little insight gained. The networks stigmatized and demonized Dr. Kevorkian, to the point that superficial associations with his name were often not unlike that of "Eichmann".

But for USAmericans concerned with or confronting end-of-life issues, there were often very different opinions about Dr. Kevorkian. I remember how even when the Kevorkian media-frenzy was at peak volume, seniors I spoke with often considered him a hero of mercy in an age when thousands are trapped in misery at the end-stage of their lives, by our society's repression of empathy and human compassion for the sake of profit, litigiousness and corporate protectionism. For many USAmericans capable of thinking independently of self-exciting media howling, Dr. Kevorkian has always been a hero, and until recently a prisoner of conscience. There are many of us who understand how Dr. Kevorkian was never "caught" breaking the law, but was instead an activist who chose to bring an important issue to light, at great personal expense.

Dr. Kevorkian tried to compel USAmerican society to confront an important issue that is kept in the shadows of terminal medical care. Patients are assisted in dying comfortably every day, but physicians mitigating their patient's suffering while protecting their human dignity must do so largely surreptitiously.

In Kevorkian's battle of conscience for more daylight on issues of dying under professional care, the good guys lost: Corporate interests won out in the media and the courtroom, and it seems that most USAmericans learned little from his high-profile case. Clear thinking was drowned out by the major-media hype, to the extent that there is even more confusion today than when Dr Kevorkian went to prison.

I'm among the minority of USAmericans who admire Dr. Kevorkian's principled demeanor and courage. He's been so thoroughly stigmatized by the media, that his standing for public office is another testimony to his unusual courage. Dr. Kevorkian is now challenging the very system of mass-programming that our media conglomerates have become, in what seems to me a hopeless last stand.

I don't think he will be able to overcome the stigma that our medical and media establishments have so successfully applied to his name, at least not sufficiently to be electable. But for those of us who respect what he has done, his courage and principled tenacity continues to be an inspiration. There are many of us who don't learn what to think from CNN and other purveyors of sensationalist superficiality. Just maybe, we're learning to recognize superficial opinions that are more of an echo of media programming, than they are a product of sincere thought about serious issues- like dying with dignity when our health terminally fails, each of us on our own terms.

I'll read that when I have time. Promise.

Yes, because it's generally accidental.

This is not some family doctor that has been with "Joe" for 30 years making a tough decision. He seeks out people to kill. He craves attention for it and many of these acts of "mercy" have no one to account the events except DR.Jack.

If you have some time on any weekend, I suggest you visit a hospice for terminal patients, expecially the ones suffering pain or debilitation.

I'm among the minority of USAmericans who admire Dr. Kevorkian's principled demeanor and courage. He's been so thoroughly stigmatized by the media, that his standing for public office is another testimony to his unusual courage. Dr. Kevorkian is now challenging the very system of mass-programming that our media conglomerates have become, in what seems to me a hopeless last stand.


well said!! :bravo:

Let him run. He won't win. This story will fizzle out and be nothing more than a question in Trivial Pursuit a decade from now.

~String

I wonder if he shows his artwork to his patients?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/aboutk/art/war.gif

I think USAmerican opinions on Dr. Kevorkian can be particularly revealing of how independent those opinions are. His trial was a milestone in great media circuses, probably not surpassed in hype until 9-11. Major US media imprinted so much programming so effectively, that nearly a decade later, buzzwords like "Dr. Death" and Suicide Jack" are much more easily-evoked than is serious thought about the issues that Kr. Kevorkian sacrificed so much to bring into the national debate. Major media corporations come to seize on issues that can easily be amplified and reverberated into a chorus of outrage- mindless rabble-rousing on the grandest scale in history. Dr. Kevorkian's story was one of those cases, when the media made a lot of advertising money through sensationalizing a story that could push all the right buttons.

For those USAmericans who were most victimized by this profitable spinning, a lot of imprinting happened, with very little insight gained. The networks stigmatized and demonized Dr. Kevorkian, to the point that superficial associations with his name were often not unlike that of "Eichmann".

But for USAmericans concerned with or confronting end-of-life issues, there were often very different opinions about Dr. Kevorkian. I remember how even when the Kevorkian media-frenzy was at peak volume, seniors I spoke with often considered him a hero of mercy in an age when thousands are trapped in misery at the end-stage of their lives, by our society's repression of empathy and human compassion for the sake of profit, litigiousness and corporate protectionism. For many USAmericans capable of thinking independently of self-exciting media howling, Dr. Kevorkian has always been a hero, and until recently a prisoner of conscience. There are many of us who understand how Dr. Kevorkian was never "caught" breaking the law, but was instead an activist who chose to bring an important issue to light, at great personal expense.

Dr. Kevorkian tried to compel USAmerican society to confront an important issue that is kept in the shadows of terminal medical care. Patients are assisted in dying comfortably every day, but physicians mitigating their patient's suffering while protecting their human dignity must do so largely surreptitiously.

In Kevorkian's battle of conscience for more daylight on issues of dying under professional care, the good guys lost: Corporate interests won out in the media and the courtroom, and it seems that most USAmericans learned little from his high-profile case. Clear thinking was drowned out by the major-media hype, to the extent that there is even more confusion today than when Dr Kevorkian went to prison.

I'm among the minority of USAmericans who admire Dr. Kevorkian's principled demeanor and courage. He's been so thoroughly stigmatized by the media, that his standing for public office is another testimony to his unusual courage. Dr. Kevorkian is now challenging the very system of mass-programming that our media conglomerates have become, in what seems to me a hopeless last stand.

I don't think he will be able to overcome the stigma that our medical and media establishments have so successfully applied to his name, at least not sufficiently to be electable. But for those of us who respect what he has done, his courage and principled tenacity continues to be an inspiration. There are many of us who don't learn what to think from CNN and other purveyors of sensationalist superficiality. Just maybe, we're learning to recognize superficial opinions that are more of an echo of media programming, than they are a product of sincere thought about serious issues- like dying with dignity when our health terminally fails, each of us on our own terms.

Well I support euthanasia, but I believe it is the religious right that forbids it out of religious dogma, how exactly its the corporations fault I don't understand. I don't know how well the "media" has demonized him as I don't really watch much "media" but I can't recall any specific demonizing article about him that was published by the "media". Although I agree with your conclusion I find your premise borders on paranoia.

By the way what is the difference between US citizens and US americans?

clusteringflux: "I wonder if he shows his artwork to his patients?"

If he ever did, he might have included the essays that accompany his paintings, like this one for The Gourmet (War), which you have posted above:
What is war? Is it a soldier dying, or guns, or bombs, or crosses, or weeping mothers, or sport, or patriotism, or valor, or high paying jobs?

What is war? Not hell. For that is merely evil.

War is worse than evil. It is mind-boggling suicide — mass suicide–with humankind devouring or trying to devour itself.

In vain attempts to assuage some sort of weird, innate (and apparently insatiable) appetite nurtured by our true and beloved God, Mars, We will not settle for less than the "flower of evolution" as the main course, embellished by bountiful side dishes and fanciful shakers filled with the "fruits" of our marvelous hands and big starving brains.

How long will we persist in this lethal nonsense?

How long before we really believe that salvation lies not in an insane paradox fostered by brute and selfish gluttony, but in the far more "nutritious" and healthful viand in the sadly neglected garden of human compassion and understanding?

Considering the status of brotherhood today, possibly too long.


Although Kevorkian the painter isn't my visual-arts cup of tea, I would at least take the time to try and understand his artwork before promoting it. His self-described purpose in painting is to shock viewers to promote thought, and he apparently uses essays like the above to augment the images.

ElectricFetus:"I believe it is the religious right that forbids it out of religious dogma, how exactly its the corporations fault I don't understand."

The religious right often has corporate allies in isolated issues. I'll assume you are referring to this remark: "Major media corporations come to seize on issues that can easily be amplified and reverberated into a chorus of outrage- mindless rabble-rousing on the grandest scale in history."

'I don't really watch much "media" '

If you want to understand what I'm getting at, then watch it some. Visit CNN's online streams, and you will consistently find superficial and sensationalized coverage of issues and events.

"I find your premise borders on paranoia."

I'm not sure what premise you consider so questionable, since you haven't been specific. Maybe this put you off: "Corporate interests won out in the media and the courtroom, and it seems that most USAmericans learned little from his high-profile case."

There are corporate interests who profit tremendously from "life"-support that does not always sustain a happy human existence. There are thousands of USAmericans suspended right this moment, against their will, between irreversibly unpleasant, degrading existence, and merciful death. But their stasis makes tremendous amounts of corporate profit.

We would never tolerate the overt funneling of profits to individuals at the expense of human misery and loss of dignity, but our society is increasingly subservient to corporate profit, and rising corporate power in a multitude of forms. It doesn't require near-paranoia to see this. Maybe you had inferred some other premise from my post?

"what is the difference between US citizens and US americans?"

They're one and the same. I just shy away from the term "Americans" to describe citizens of a single American country within North & South America.

Did you notice that the soldier in the painting looks a lot like him.

As for the essay, its as stupid as the painting, which is fitting. I mean, the guy is prolly not even smart enough to do real medical work.

I don't recall any place where vehicular manslaughter was considered alright
I think it is in Massachusetts, but only if a Kennedy is driving.

"what is the difference between US citizens and US americans?"

They're one and the same. I just shy away from the term "Americans" to describe citizens of a single American country within North & South America.

I like that, I shall now adopt this in your honor. :)

:jawdrop:

ElectricFetus:"I believe it is the religious right that forbids it out of religious dogma, how exactly its the corporations fault I don't understand."

The religious right often has corporate allies in isolated issues. I'll assume you are referring to this remark: "Major media corporations come to seize on issues that can easily be amplified and reverberated into a chorus of outrage- mindless rabble-rousing on the grandest scale in history."

'I don't really watch much "media" '

If you want to understand what I'm getting at, then watch it some. Visit CNN's online streams, and you will consistently find superficial and sensationalized coverage of issues and events.

"I find your premise borders on paranoia."

I'm not sure what premise you consider so questionable, since you haven't been specific. Maybe this put you off: "Corporate interests won out in the media and the courtroom, and it seems that most USAmericans learned little from his high-profile case."

There are corporate interests who profit tremendously from "life"-support that does not always sustain a happy human existence. There are thousands of USAmericans suspended right this moment, against their will, between irreversibly unpleasant, degrading existence, and merciful death. But their stasis makes tremendous amounts of corporate profit.

We would never tolerate the overt funneling of profits to individuals at the expense of human misery and loss of dignity, but our society is increasingly subservient to corporate profit, and rising corporate power in a multitude of forms. It doesn't require near-paranoia to see this. Maybe you had inferred some other premise from my post?

"what is the difference between US citizens and US americans?"

They're one and the same. I just shy away from the term "Americans" to describe citizens of a single American country within North & South America.

You could just say "US citizens" and avoid the incorrect term "american" all together.

I don't think there is that much money made on keeping the terminally ill that want to die alive, probably far more money is made on hair plugs for example. It just does not make sense as a means of cooperate profit powerful enough to affect legislation. It makes better sense that the religious right forbid any from of suicide based on the belief that it is wrong and that god wants these people to suffer.

clusteringflux,

I think that is him... the one who's head is being feed to him self, by the roman solider which is a metaphor on government.

S.A.M. : "I like that, I shall now adopt this in your honor."

I can't take the credit, Sam - I first laughingly started using the term after Miss Teen America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII) displayed the flower of contemporary USAmerican education. Intentionally or not, I've come to think she was onto something with the term.

I meant the roman soldier....He's got Jack's smile.

ElectricFetus: "I don't think there is that much money made on keeping the terminally ill that want to die alive, probably far more money is made on hair plugs for example."

Being kept alive entails much larger bills (and profits) than hair plugs. People (especially those who have not made their wishes explicit) are often kept alive under excruciating circumstances for profit, and for protecting the corporation(s) involved from liability in contested cases. As the conversion of US medical care into for-profit enterprises continues, expanding corporate tendencies for increasing revenue flows should be expected. A lot of money changes hands for terminal-phase life-extension/support - justified or not.

"It just does not make sense as a means of cooperate profit powerful enough to affect legislation."

Terminal patient care is a significant part of the largest industry in the USA (health /medical).

"It makes better sense that the religious right forbid any from of suicide based on the belief that it is wrong and that god wants these people to suffer."

I'm not denying that this happens. There are cases when uninformed and/or indecisive family members are influenced by professionals holding beliefs similar to what you describe. This turns especially tragic when someone suffering an excruciating terminal illness is intubated, ventilated, etc- often prolonging their agony against their will, and without reasonable hope of recovery.

Corporate profits in the billions are enhanced in a legal climate that strenuously asserts that life-extension is imperative at any cost on one hand, even as corporate attorneys are always busy arguing that death is perfectly natural- that is, when malpractice is the issue. If you really don't believe that life-support generates significantly more cash flow than hair plugs, you obviously haven't tried to learn much about the procedures, personnel, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and sources of funding involved. If you haven't noticed the intense lobbying efforts of the medical industry in Washington and their results, well you're just not paying attention.

S.A.M. : "I like that, I shall now adopt this in your honor."

I can't take the credit, Sam - I first laughingly started using the term after Miss Teen America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII) displayed the flower of contemporary USAmerican education. Intentionally or not, I've come to think she was onto something with the term.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

hypewaders,

How many people are there that are terminally ill or in incurable pain, express the desire to die, and can't kill them selves? Don't count people that are dieing from diseases that can be treated, or people that are dieing but don't want to die just yet, only those that want to die but can't physically kill them selves. Now euthanizing those that are too brain damaged to say they want to die (or don't want to die) is a whole other issue, I would agree that we should euthanize them, but that is because I'm a bit of a nazi.

The man had an agenda and he used other people's lives to make a point. Not all of them had terminal illnesses. What that murderer did shouldn't be confused with assisted suicide.

I didn't know felons could run for office. Considering how many are already in politics, I should be surprised.

Kevorkian's activism has been focused on terminally-ill persons who want control over the cirrcumstances and experience of their own deaths.

ElectricFetus: "How many people are there that are terminally ill or in incurable pain, express the desire to die, and can't kill them selves?"

I can't answer with a number, but I suspect the true number is immense. Because euthanasia is both illegal and stigmatized in the USA many USAmericans do not pass gently, in a physical or financial sense. It's not uncommon for dying people to slowly suffocate for hours and even days for example, or experience other unecessarily (profit and propriety aside) prolonged agonies in their last hours. As further insult to agonizing injury, it is also common for fortunes to be consumed in prolonging our passing away.

If you're curious about statistics, find them yourself. I am convinced of a state of national denial about the dying process. I'm also convinced that corporations are capable of organic behaviors of self-interest that are so focused on profit as to be blind to mercy. As a direct result, I doubt that reliable statistics are available from the medical industry.

I suggest you spend as much time with dying people, as your sincere interest takes you in this subject. It's in such company that my opinion has been mostly formed, that our medical and legal establishment really does discompassionately trap untold thousands every year within artificially-prolonged, horrific, and demeaning final experiences.

How about this. You list the names of the people he killed and what their terminal illness was.

Orleander: "Not all of [Kevorkian's assisted suicides] had terminal illnesses."

I've learned that's technically true. Some (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/interviews/wantzmiller1.html) could have lived on with a poor quality of life for many years, but did not wish to.

"You list the names of the people he killed and what their terminal illness was."

I have no reason to doubt that Kevorkian's patients made their decisions in sound judgement. I've read of one who suffered intense, and endless pain. In my opinion, and I know I'm not alone, there are fates worse than death. You are making the accusation that Kevorkian assisted in indefensible suicide, so why not take up the worst case you know about here?

Between 1990 and 1998, Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of nearly one hundred terminally ill people, according to his lawyer Geoffrey Fieger. In 8 yrs, 100 people?! That's more than 1 a month!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkia
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19807238.html

Naomi Sachs - osteoperosis
Give me time. 100 people is a lot to go through.

Take your time. In all the cases I've read about, Dr. Kevorkian never facilitated an impulsive act of suicide because he had a documented process of ensuring his suicide patients were making sound decisions for reasons that I (for one) can find understandable.

Janet Adkins - Alzheimer’s disease (was she capable of making that decision?!)

T...Kevorkian never facilitated an impulsive act of suicide....

so as long as it was a well thought out idea it was ok to help these people? I thought it was about people who were terminally ill. What if these people could have been helped with medication or therapy?

100 people? 1 a month. Was he really helping or did he just like watching people die? He didn't do it because he cared, he did it cause he could.

Here's a NYT article concerning Naomi Sachs (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EFDB113BF930A15752C1A9619582 60): A New York City woman who committed suicide in Michigan with the help of Dr. Jack Kevorkian had talked about dying for a long time, a neighbor said yesterday.

Dr. Kevorkian's attorney, Michael Schwartz, identified the woman as Naomi Sachs, 84. Mrs. Sachs was brought to a Pontiac, Mich., hospital on Friday morning. Mr. Schwartz said Mrs. Sachs had multiple fractures as a result of severe osteoporosis. ''She was in unremitting and continuous pain,'' he said.

''She had been thinking about dying for quite a while,'' said Hannah Berman as she stood in the courtyard of the apartment complex at 10 Waterside Plaza in Manhattan. ''She talked to everyone about it.''

http://www.suite101.com/external_link.cfm?elink=http://www.finalexit.org/120frame.html

Here is a partial list. I am for assisted suicide. I am not a Kevorkian supporter. The man is a mass murderer. 19 people in 1996 alone! Come on!!

Im facinated that someone who ethanases pts who WANT to die is such a bad person but a man who flew back to watch a man, so mentally handicaped that he put his desert under the bed to eat latter, being put to death becomes president and this is a good thing?

I think clinton was a good president but when i herd about this i actually started dry reaching its that discusting.

Ethanasia should be legal and the death penelty should be outlawed

what??? What is ethanases? And who has enough sand for a desert under their bed?

Orleander you know it was a typo

Dessert

and euthanasia

Orleander you know it was a typo

Dessert

and euthanasia

Oh, so you can spell?
:p

Orleander: "The man is a mass murderer."

Physician-assisted suicide was Kevorkian's calling as a doctor- he became a magnet for people seeking his care- and being an activist, he welcomed it. He did not apparently facilitate any obviously impulsive, or purely depression-motivated suicides. It's reasonable to assume (considering his notoriety) that there were many unbalanced appeals turned down, and probably referred instead for psychiatry or therapy.

A lot of people surely seek, but are denied the same final mercies we routinely give to our seriously-ailing pets. Our society routinely denies millions of people the control and dignified escape from unnecessary suffering that we all deserve in our personal times of dying. There should be no shame in cases of terminally-failing health, or in inescapable agony, for suffering people to openly choose and find their final release.

"19 people in 1996 alone! Come on!!"

Euthanasia can be a very simple and humane procedure, and Dr. Kevorkian definitely kept it simple. If he had been a cardiac surgeon, providing much more complex service, 19 procedures in a year would hardly be enough to even stay proficient. Googling up what is out there about Dr. Kevorkian's career, there is much more vitriol against him, than there is clear case history. Obviously, his story was greatly sensationalized and politicised. Yet here and there, what I perceive as greater clarity peeks through:

The Hippocratic oath really has two dimensions. One is to preserve life and the other is to relieve human suffering. Usually you are trying to do both but in end of life care you take relief of suffering as your priority, and you may use methods that may indirectly shorten life. People have a sense of who they are and what's important in life and want to die with that intact. (Dr. Timothy Quill (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E5DC1F30F931A35752C0A9619582 60))


Back to Orleander's "mass-murderer" accusation, I think that not-uncommon sentiment illustrates why Jack Kevorkian's political aspirations are unrealistic. The media did a thorough job depicting him in a sensationalized, diabolical light- and the media grossly oversimplified the nuances of considered (as opposed to impulsive) suicide. Media show-biz often conveniently ignores nuance for drama, and major media characteristically ignored the difference between suicide having rational reasons, and suicide resulting from irrationality and mental disorders. The psychological conditioning, and broad-brush issue-smearing power of major media is formidable, and largely indelible on the macro scale. I don't see how Kevorkian could expect to overcome it, or his hepatitis-C, enough to become a Congressman. I suspect he's just trying to promote his cause as best he can unto death. Kevorkian seems ever eager to draw the circus lights. I wish he would go on a nice lecture tour and/or write a book, and then retire quietly, because it seems to me that the circus cacophony mostly drowns out the truth.

I note that you're not anti-euthanasia, Orleander. You just consider Kevorkian a murderer, which is where we differ. I ask you to consider that there is much greater unpunished malpractice to be found away from the media spotlight that Jack Kevorkian is so drawn to.

Anyone ever here of Nitrogen asphyxiation, probably less painful then CO or at least less hazardous to carry around.

"Anyone ever here of Nitrogen asphyxiation"

Of course any gas other than O2 can asphyxiate, but I thought that CO had the advantage of fooling the system, since it binds so well to the hemoglobin. Wouldn't there be a sensation of oxygen deprivation and breathlessness with inert gases? Even so, I'd prefer that to the slower asphyxiation so many people die of with failing lungs.

Orleander mentioned Janet Adkins above. Not meaning to ignore her case, I searched out what I could find of Janet's story: In June 1989, 53-year-old Janet Adkins of Portland, Oregon, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease—the nation's fourth-leading cause of death, which manifests itself as the irreversible deterioration of brain cells. A Renaissance woman, Janet had taught English and piano, taken up hang gliding when her three sons were grown, traversed the mountains of Nepal, and climbed Oregon's highest peak, Mount Hood. Determined not to put herself or her family through the agony of Alzheimer's, she began to plan her own death.

When Adkins heard about Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a 62-year-old pathologist in Royal Oak, Michigan, who had invented a suicide device, she got in touch with him. Dr. Kevorkian was known among medics as an eccentric. Officials had forced him out of his residency at the University of Michigan Hospital in 1958 when he proposed medical experiments on death-row prisoners. Since 1982, his ideas on euthanasia had prevented his getting an appointment in a hospital. But, he was still licensed to practice medicine in Michigan and California. Over several weeks, Kevorkian talked frequently with Janet. He ascertained that her determination to kill herself was clear. But, in Oregon, causing or assisting a suicide was a felony. Michigan had no such statute.

In June 1990, Janet Adkins and her husband flew to Michigan. Over dinner, Kevorkian explained the suicide procedure. Over the next two days he tried to find a motel, funeral home, or vacant office to permit Janet Adkins's suicide on its premises. He explained that he had to tell them what he was doing so they wouldn't sue him later for emotional distress. All efforts failed. Finally, he drove Janet in his own rusty 1968 Volkswagen van to a campsite that had electrical hookups. He attached an electrocardiogram to monitor Janet's heart; next he inserted an intravenous needle into her arm to drip harmless saline solution. Then, as Adkins pressed a button on the machine, stopping the saline and starting the thiopental, which induced unconsciousness, she said, "Thank you, thank you, thank you." A minute later, the machine switched to potassium chloride, which stopped Adkins's heart. The doctor called 911 and, when the police came, told them what he had done. Within hours, his name was being heard in households across America.

If I were ever to confront the inevitability of my mind and personality imminently and irreversibly slipping away, leaving an empty vessel behind; a poor representative of myself burdening my closest friends and family for potentially many years- I would so much appreciate the freedom to make the such a choice as Janet did while sanity remained, with the compassionate support and respect of those who care about me.

any gass will work EF, the reason CO2 is so good is because its heavy and sinks to the ground lowing the level of oxygen

As for CO its advantage is that it binds to hemoglobin better than O2 does and thefore the body cant get enough oxygen even if its in a oxygen ritch enviroment

Personally i would take a morphine\medas od over asphyxiation

Damit hyper, you posted that as i was posting my post:p

Sorry, Asguard

I have experienced partial inadvertent CO poisoning- there was no discomfort, just drowsiness until I realized what was happening and shut the device off (faulty aircraft heating). I did have one hell of a headache during recovery from that. All the aviation texts warn that CO will painlessly put you out for good, given enough exposure. It is, after all, a popular method of unassisted suicide.

i know, its good in combination with morphine and a seditive like medaz. The problems are the agression that O2 deprivation causes ect which mean the pt doesnt die peacefully but fighting at the end before they fall asleep

The other problem is the fact that the family cant be in the room with CO where as with a respitory sepressant like the barbituates in conjuntion with morphine and medaz the pt just falls asleep and goes into respitory arest and there family can hold there hands to the end

Aggression and agony with CO poisoning? I was always taught that enough sustained concentration of this odorless gas brings drowsiness, then unconsciousness, followed by death.

i never said agony, but i DO know that agression is a comon side effect before they get to the falling asleep level. It makes people who are oxygen deprived had to treat because they fight you all the way even though your trying to help them

thats why i like the sedating drugs, not only does the pt just fall asleep before the respitory arrest but the family can be there which they cant with a gas

I used CO2 to asphyxiate animals, its not pretty, they hyperventilate first, then panic then curl up and gasp to death. Reptiles are particularly hard because it can take them hours to die even in pure CO2. Them and you can detect slow changes in CO2 concentration as breathing not controlled by of letting in oxygen by letting out CO2. CO2 turns to H2CO3 in blood, being acidic your brain detects the pH level decrease in instructs you to breath faster and harder (to hyperventilate to try to remove the CO2 and return to homeostatic pH, this fails are CO2 concentrations above 10% and you die of blood acidification, ideally you die of oxygen derivation using 100% pure CO2 but for the first minute your going to be in allot of pain.

From what I have read it quite painless as your body can't detect low oxygen air (your body relies on CO2 build up to indirectly determine low oxygen. With Nitogen you just go unconscious. You can try it your self by inhaling helium, you will not feel distressed until suddenly you go light headed and then black out.

Nitrogen is not toxic like CO and is thus easy and safe to carry around, most of all you can safely asphyxiate a person right next to you without having to worry about haling toxic gas.

Wow, I guess the aviation texts aren't so truthful about the insidiousness of CO- Or maybe, once the agonies start, one is already severely brain-damaged. And I agree Asguard, a dignified and peaceful passing is key.

ElectricFetus: "You can try it your self by inhaling helium, you will not feel distressed until suddenly you go light headed and then black out."

That's right- Now I remember that I've gone dizzy and greyed out with helium, without distress. That experience briefly felt something like altitude-chamber rides, where I tend to go batty without feeling starved for air at all. After Navy chamber-rides, they would later play us a video of our hypoxic stupidity, and it was something to behold: Complete blathering idiots, with no recall had we not seen our videos.

One thing seems fairly certain- that once the brain does shut down into unconsciousness, nothing much matters to it anymore. Still, I wonder about those stories of rare experiences of wakefulness under anaesthesia, etc. Maybe our brain activity should be monitored when we're put under, temporarily or for the last time. I suspect for all of Kevorkian's efforts (that I expect are rooted in compassion) he may soon be considered very primitive in his methods. Better primitive mercy than none at all, though. Like Ole Willy said (http://www.enotes.com/merchant-text/37485#thequality):The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God's
When mercy seasons justice.