I actually met Kevorkian, several times.

That man was deeply, deeply weird. He had all sorts of oddball theories about what happens to people leading up to and at the actual moment of death. Most of his interest in euthanasia was not so much fed (IMHO) by any interest in alleviating the suffering of the terminally ill, as it was in feeding his personal intellectual fixations about death and dying.

I'm a strong proponent of physician-assisted suicide. At the same time, it has to be said that Dr Jack set back the cause of PAS by decades because of his bizarre and misguided approach. Offing people in the back of a beat-up VW Microbus, or on the unwashed floor of an abandoned beauty shop on Dixie Highway, is not the way to persuade the great majority of the voters that PAS is a good idea that's worthy of support. Maybe his motivations were pure (although I doubt it, see above) but he chose the worst possible ways to press his case, and continued to do so even when it became clear that he was polarizing the issue. It didn't help that he had a relentless self-promoter for a lawyer - I suspect that Kevorkian was in some ways a bit of a naïf, who was easily led for the benefit of others.

JMHO, YMMV.

llater,

llamas

Most of the people Kevorkian "helped" were not terminally ill. Some of them were just depressed.

I'm sure the friends, family, and therapists of those depressed suicides consider Kevorkian a hero. Snort.

Just where is this "right" to have someone else assist you in killing yourself?

Entire classes of people scoff at the idea of "inalienable rights" granted by a creator. So where do you get *this* right?

Be sure to enumerate the ways you must impose on others to grant your wishes.

I got my wife's former boss a gift certificate for one visit to the office of Dr. Kevorkian. Wish he would have used it.

> So where do you get *this* right?

☑

(Pssst- I think she gets is from the same place where she, as a business person, gets to ignore gay marriage if she feels like it... Even though, y'know, everyone should support gay marriage.)

In other words, in the modern world, a "right" is just an impulse.

See also, the comments in the freestyle page today.

It often seems like our purpose on this blog is to remind Amy that her beliefs aren't notably "rational." She's a human being from the United States. That's the best kind of human being, by far, but still... We're not all gonna be superhero(ine)s.

Also to show that not every patch of unpleasantness is a violation of a "right"...

People, policy is not the problem.

Have I mentioned this? In earlier times, on this blog? Yes, I have.


And for the record, judging the aesthetics of work by the cuteness of its composer's political allegiances will lead you to the worst imaginable art.

(Who's your favorite scholar of women's studies?)

Radwaste can you be more specific about "'right' to have someone assist" in terms of specifying more precisely what you mean by assist?

For example:
+ help you google suicide techniques?
+ discuss suicide supplies?
+ help you obtain legal over the counter supplies?
+ help you build or attach devices?
+ ???

This would include the right to take your own life or have help doing that if you cannot do it yourself.

I suspect that people opposed to assisted suicide fall into two camps: those who are flat-out opposed to people committing suicide (they would, in my opinion, tend to be religious conservatives...doesn't the biblical God forbid it?), and those who are OK with people killing themselves, but are wary of the potential pitfalls with allowing others to help.

In theory I think a person should have the same right to have someone help them commit suicide as they should have to do it alone. But this presumes they are of sound mind are aren't being subjected to any pressures by others.

I'm ok with smoking pot until you eat all the Oreos in the cupboard, with owning guns just because you damned well feel like it, and for offing yourself with our without help and without criminal penalties because your life has become unbearable to you. None of these things may work for me but it's not my job to keep you from exercising your human rights.

Maybe Dr. Jack wouldn't have had to help in a dirty room or an old VW bus (brand names of cars being very important in this discussion) if our hypocritical government actually protected our right to the pursuit of happiness in all its forms, instead of protecting the reactionary wing of the Puritan class and their voting bloc.

Ditto Dr K as a weirdo. His clients were lab rats to him, and their suffering made no impression on him.

Jerry, it's really simple: if you insist that a person has a RIGHT to assistance killing themselves, then someone else is OBLIGED to help them.

Where does this idea come from?
How do you protect this person from accusations of mercenary behavior?
How do you keep the person suffering from being offed for money?

Say, for grins, that your neighbor wants to kill himself and he wants to use your gun.

Go.

Be sure to include a scenario where this "right" is encoded in LAW, and you, or your elected agent of the State, MUST assist your neighbor.

If you say this is a "right" - the burden of proof is yours.

OK, Crid, I'm with you at this time on gay marriage, but when did Amy ever ignore the issue? She has consistently pressed for a right for people to marry other people of the same sex, as far as I know.

"if you insist that a person has a RIGHT to assistance killing themselves, then someone else is OBLIGED to help them."

I am not sure that's what "right" means.

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

Sadly, I don't think I have a right to happiness, and worse for me, I don't believe anyone is obliged to help me persue happiness.

Perfuit of happiness is still an inalienable right though.

"This would include the right to take your own life or have help doing that if you cannot do it yourself."

Amy may have worded that a bit strongly, but I think the acts I mentioned above

+ help you google suicide techniques?
+ discuss suicide supplies?
+ help you obtain legal over the counter supplies?
+ help you build or attach devices?

might fall under persuit of happiness.

> when did Amy ever ignore the issue?

Naw, it's that she says other businessfolk are free to reject gay marriage... She says photographers and bakers and florists can turn gays down as clients if they want to...

…Which I regard as a pretty watery state of marriage.

(And for the record, she doesn't believe in marriage at all: She says the state should have nothing to do with it!)

Are you following all that? Like I said, impulse. It's a wicked desire to convert twitches into policy.

> photographers, bakers, and florists should
> be allowed to turn down anyone they don't
> want to do business with.

Bankers, landlords, attorneys.

Gardeners, architects, dentists.

Video editors, advice columinists, clergy, audiologists, teachers, pilots, surveyors, cops.

If you didn't want control of others' lives, you wouldn't be telling them they have to support gay marriage.

"-- providing there is solid evidence that this is your wish, to end your suffering, and not a murder?"

Here is where it gets problematic. You, and I, and worse, the prosecutor, in the local DA's,office might not be in agreement as to what constitutes "solid evidence".

After you are dead, you are not going to be around to testify on my behalf.

However, I am sure on "policy planet" assisted suicide will function perfectly, and no one will ever question your motives for offing great aunt Nellie who just left you a million bucks in her will.

"This would include the right to take your own life or have help doing that if you cannot do it yourself."

And this is simply bullshit, because rights do NOT extend to your REQUIRING the actions of other ordinary citizens.

That's a product of the nanny state: the idea that if we can't get something on our own, we have the power to compel others to deliver it for us!

And this is simply bullshit, because rights do NOT extend to your REQUIRING the actions of other ordinary citizens.

Where did Amy said that a person has the right to "require" someone else to help them take their own life?

What she said was that a person should have the right to "have help" doing it if they can't do it themself. In otherwords, they should have the right to ASK someone for assistance. Asking someone is different than requiring or compelling them.

I think photographers, bakers, and florists should be allowed to turn down anyone they don't want to do business with.

Indeed you do, and you've stated that many times. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you and don't believe that business owners should be able to discriminate against others simply because they don't like the fact that they're black, female, Jewish, Muslim, gay, etc.

Okay, JD, I'll address your flimsy thinking:

You have no idea what a "right" is. That's okay – when Amy cited the Tarika Wilson case, it became obvious that most people have no idea about the real world when it comes to the exercise of rights.

When established, it is something that society has a duty to observe. A "right" is exercised by competent persons and paid for by the exercise of the commensurate responsibilities.

Suppose your neighbor comes over and asks for your assistance in committing suicide, and is successful. What do you say to the courts and to that man's relatives when it turns out that they have different ideas about what should have happened?
Ready to defend yourself in court? If this "aid" of yours is actually a "right", are you ready to be sued for depriving someone of the right to assisted suicide because you told them "no"?

Lots of people want the tough decisions to be handled by "someone else". I suggest that this what is happening with this issue.

> What she said was that a person should have
> the right to "have help" doing it if they
> can't do it themself.

Why the quotation marks around have help?

Are you quoting someone?

Is there a reason you need to hold that particular language away from your body as you speak?

The people who use the words the word should around the word rights are usually children.

Children, living in legal (and appropriate) bondage to their parents, know full well that they only have as many rights as their parents say they have.

Children also know that Mom & Dad can be persuaded about stuff. So for children, many rights are flexible, and only a few are solid granite.

But in adult life, and in the history of civilization, that ain't how it goes.

(I'm not your Dad; I'm a taxpayer. Don't bother me with your whining.)

Among other descriptions, your rights are what others will rise to defend.

And the rest of the world isn't much interested in loosening its young, precious and fragile definitions of murder so that you can avoid the pain from death…

…A suffering which awaits us all, as it has for everyone who ever lived.

More more moar, but I gotta gota werk.

Rad, are you aware that requesting and requiring are two separate words?

Indeed you do, and you've stated that many times. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans disagree with you and don't believe that business owners should be able to discriminate against others simply because they don't like the fact that they're black, female, Jewish, Muslim, gay, etc. -- JD at April 5, 2014 11:18 AM

The law, as it currently stands, says you can't discriminate on who you are required to serve.

Now that we are 50 years down the road from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 frankly it doesn't really matter in general.

And if I was a business owner -- from restaurant, bar, hairstylist, photographer or whatever I would find every single business that had a sign in the window and set up a competing business across the street to serve everyone.

Prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 there were several chains of various sorts that realized that people traveling with the disabled people and putting in ramps and such made those lives easier. The companies did it on their own without being compelled by law. The chains had booming business when it was known that they had ramps and the rest, compared to chain Y.

There is an anecdotal story, from the early 80's, that the United Airlines CEO was a wheelchair bound Vietnam Vet. The check-in staff didn't make sure they had a ramp capable chair available. So the pilot comes off the plane, slings the CEO over his shoulder and carries him to his seat. The flight was delayed as they looked for a new pilot.

Then add in that under current administration only if you're white can you be discriminating against someone. Look at the case that was dismissed against the Black Panthers by Holder.

The point being is that government funded, mandated and required discrimination is wrong. But also government funded, mandated and requirement for anyone to do something against their beliefs is also wrong.

Aha. So this is where all the heated action is. I should have known but I've been avoiding this particular topic.

I have to say, seeing the spirited but healthy debate that happens in some of Amy's threads, it makes me think this place might benefit from having an actual 'forum' on the site. Where people can continue talking - and the most popular topics automatically refresh to top position. Aside from minimum moderation, it would run itself. Amy keeps her visitors (traffic) on the site and page views increase. It's simple to place banner ads or incorporate current advertisers. And it creates a greater sense of community. I think the Goddess has the platform and readership to make a successful forum here.

"Rad, are you aware that requesting and requiring are two separate words?"

Are you aware that there is no such thing as REQUESTING a right?

Me: What she said was that a person should have the right to "have help" doing it if they can't do it themself.

You: Why the quotation marks around have help? Are you quoting someone?

Indeed I am. That would be why she said was part of my sentence.

But also government funded, mandated and requirement for anyone to do something against their beliefs is also wrong.

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. And you're entitled to work toward eliminating not just anti-discrimination laws, but all government regulations on businesses.

Here in Washington State, we (the majority, certainly not everyone) believe in individual freedoms (e.g. legalizing same-sex marriage & growing/selling/using pot, the Death with Dignity Act), but also believe in government regulation of businesses (e.g. anti-discrimination law, highest minimum wage in the country, a law banning smoking in bars and restaurants.) The majority of people in the U.S. probably don't agree with us on individual freedoms (or at least those noted above) but I'm sure they agree with us, and disagree with you, on the regulation of businesses.

I have to say, seeing the spirited but healthy debate that happens in some of Amy's threads, it makes me think this place might benefit from having an actual 'forum' on the site. Where people can continue talking - and the most popular topics automatically refresh to top position. Aside from minimum moderation, it would run itself.

Tim, back in the late '90s I began posting on a radio station message board which had that "forum" structure, where the topic with the most recent post rose to the top. The station discontinued support for it after a few years so we set up a new one and it also had the same structure. I greatly prefer that to blogs, where -- on every blog I've seen -- topics never refresh to the top.

If this "aid" of yours is actually a "right", are you ready to be sued for depriving someone of the right to assisted suicide because you told them "no"?

Radwaste, let me return to what Amy wrote: "This would include the right to take your own life or have help doing that if you cannot do it yourself."

Forget about the word "right." What I would say is that it should not be illegal for a person to assist another in ending their life (as long as there are safeguards in place.) The way the Washington Death with Dignity Act puts it, in RCW 70.245.190 is:

A person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with this chapter. This includes being present when a qualified patient takes the prescribed medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner

Here in Washington State, we (the majority, certainly not everyone) believe in individual freedoms (e.g. legalizing same-sex marriage & growing/selling/using pot, the Death with Dignity Act), but also believe in government regulation of businesses (e.g. anti-discrimination law, highest minimum wage in the country, a law banning smoking in bars and restaurants.) The majority of people in the U.S. probably don't agree with us on individual freedoms (or at least those noted above) but I'm sure they agree with us, and disagree with you, on the regulation of businesses. -- JD at April 6, 2014 1:09 PM

The problem with your concept of this is that you believe that the mob rules (democracy) or an oligarchy.

There are some regulations that need to be in place, such as a minimum standard for sanitation and cleanliness for restaurants. Immunization is done on an "or else" basis -- get your children immunized of they can't attend school, etc. And in those cases you non-immunized child works on the herd immunity principle. These are issues that can effect the whole community and should face public scrutiny. But even that should face the rational basis test.

But the problem is that you are saying anti-discrimination laws are not the same as the pot laws. Same with the anti-smoking and assisted suicide laws. Why are they different? If I want a to open a bar and let people smoke why can't I? Because the mob ruled that I don't have that choice?

So when you can justify that regulating a private business' choice is different than regulating a private individual's choice, let me know?