So as I was saying...XXXII
There was a movie on HBO the other night, that I was really looking forward to seeing. It was called, "You don't know Jack" and it stared Al Pacino as Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian, as we all remember, became a household word in the 1990's, for developing a machine that would allow terminally ill patients to terminate their life. A suicide machine if you will.
When Jack was running around Detroit, performing his 'services', I was living there and doing some work for a radio station. He was very accommodating to us and other media outlets. I remember we had his home phone number, and would often call him at four or five morning to get a quote or two. Many times he would come to the station, often with his lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger in tow. (There was a part in the movie made me chuckle. It was where he would talk about firing Fieger. That was true as he would say that all the time!!).
As far as your views or mine on assisted suicide, it doesn't matter. This piece isn't about that. What Kevorkian was advocating was the right of the patient to chose whatever course of action they wanted in their medical care, even if it includes killing themselves. It seemed radical then, as it does now.
Ultimately what he wanted was the Supreme Court to hear his case. He believed that it wasn't the duty of the government, religion, the medical profession, or anyone else to keep a terminally ill person alive. If they were beyond the help of medicine, in extreme pain, and death was coming soon, Jack felt it should be the decision of the patient when to end life. In fairness to the Doctor, he was judicious in selecting whom to help. He had the patient go through psychological testing, and worked with both the patient and his family. If there was any doubt, he wouldn't help. I am not passing judgment, but just clarifying some of the inaccuracies that were often reported.
The Court, then as now, wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Though the Court never comments on cases that they won't hear, my guess is they were afraid of the precedent it would sent. A decision like that could reverberate for generations. As medical science changes, and with it our own way of looking at these things, this whole discussion can change. By leaving it within control of individual state's, laws and statues can be changed and adapted. If the Court had issued a ruling, it would be written in history. I am not sure anyone who have wanted that.
My own issues with Kevorkian dealt with his methodology. Had he gone about his business quietly, chances are, the state of Michigan would have left him alone. The fact that he (and Fieger) have never seen a TV camera yet that they didn't love, eventually was his undoing. The bizarre antics eventually forced the state's hand. In the process lost Fieger as his council (he thought he could represent himself), and eventually his freedom. The messenger is never bigger than the message. In my opinion, Jack lost sight of that.
Will be back with a new Person of the Week on Thursday.
We will talk soon, and don't forget the sports stuff on www.examiner.com
/>
Jeff
When Jack was running around Detroit, performing his 'services', I was living there and doing some work for a radio station. He was very accommodating to us and other media outlets. I remember we had his home phone number, and would often call him at four or five morning to get a quote or two. Many times he would come to the station, often with his lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger in tow. (There was a part in the movie made me chuckle. It was where he would talk about firing Fieger. That was true as he would say that all the time!!).
As far as your views or mine on assisted suicide, it doesn't matter. This piece isn't about that. What Kevorkian was advocating was the right of the patient to chose whatever course of action they wanted in their medical care, even if it includes killing themselves. It seemed radical then, as it does now.
Ultimately what he wanted was the Supreme Court to hear his case. He believed that it wasn't the duty of the government, religion, the medical profession, or anyone else to keep a terminally ill person alive. If they were beyond the help of medicine, in extreme pain, and death was coming soon, Jack felt it should be the decision of the patient when to end life. In fairness to the Doctor, he was judicious in selecting whom to help. He had the patient go through psychological testing, and worked with both the patient and his family. If there was any doubt, he wouldn't help. I am not passing judgment, but just clarifying some of the inaccuracies that were often reported.
The Court, then as now, wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Though the Court never comments on cases that they won't hear, my guess is they were afraid of the precedent it would sent. A decision like that could reverberate for generations. As medical science changes, and with it our own way of looking at these things, this whole discussion can change. By leaving it within control of individual state's, laws and statues can be changed and adapted. If the Court had issued a ruling, it would be written in history. I am not sure anyone who have wanted that.
My own issues with Kevorkian dealt with his methodology. Had he gone about his business quietly, chances are, the state of Michigan would have left him alone. The fact that he (and Fieger) have never seen a TV camera yet that they didn't love, eventually was his undoing. The bizarre antics eventually forced the state's hand. In the process lost Fieger as his council (he thought he could represent himself), and eventually his freedom. The messenger is never bigger than the message. In my opinion, Jack lost sight of that.
Will be back with a new Person of the Week on Thursday.
We will talk soon, and don't forget the sports stuff on www.examiner.com
/>
Jeff
Do you permit me if I linked your website article on my twitter account?
Reply to this
Sure feel free.
Reply to this