Apparently Roger Ebert Thinks Docudramas are Factual - A Response to "Now I lay me down to sleep"

After having pissed off just about every active alcoholic - and people who love them - Roger Ebert came out today with a blog essay that I'm sure he thought would be a crowd pleaser.

Today's blog essay is titled "Now I lay me down to sleep."

The short version goes like this - Robert Ebert saw the HBO docudrama about Jack Kevorkian, and - forgetting how much license with the facts docudramas take - figures he really knows Jack Kevorkian now and also knows all that is important about assisted suicide as public policy. As for his own feelings on the subject -- he claims the only real objections are religious ones, he's not religious and he's fine with it, as long as it's for terminally ill people who are in pain. He doesn't seem to realize that's a narrower set of criteria than the state of Oregon allows.  Critical analysis is in short supply in this essay.

Ebert throws around misstatements of fact with abandon, as he does here:

After Paul Schrader assured me Al Pacino's performance in the film was the best of the year, I rented it from Netflix, and after watching it I realized I didn't know Jack. He is depicted as tactless, cantankerous, argumentative, and brave. He was not a palatable poster child for assisted suicide, but perhaps it required a man with his single-minded zeal to bring the subject into discussion. He said he helped 130 patients kill themselves. Every time he was brought to trial in one of those cases of assistance, the jury acquitted him. He had kept video records of his interviews with the patients and the actual moments of their death, and jurors apparently agreed that he was providing medical help requested by a terminally ill person. (Emphasis added.)

That's just plain false.  For example, one of the trials in which he was acquitted involved his roles in the deaths of Sherry Miller, who had multiple sclerosis (she'd also been abandoned by her husband and lost custody of her children) and Marjorie Wantz, a woman who experienced pelvic pain.  Neither was terminal.  Miller, with a condition prone to depression, was also hard hit by her family losses.  None of that mattered to the jury - Fieger played up how awful it was to live in a wheelchair and how no one would want to live like that.  The jury agreed.

More...

In trying that last case, a prosecutor made a tactical call: He decided to drop charges of assisted suicide, in order to prevent any videos of the patient being seen by a jury. He chose to prosecute only on the narrow charge of murder in the second degree, for which Kevorkian himself had provided the documentary evidence. The doctor was sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison, served eight and a half years, was paroled in 2007, and died on June 3, 2011.

Again, this is just wrong, no matter how confidently Ebert states this.  The reason the assisted suicide charges were dropped had nothing to do with video tapes - in fact, the prosecutor used one of Kevorkian's tapes very effectively in his closing arguments. The tactic was used because it meant testimony from Thomas Youk's brother and wife wouldn't be allowed.  They weren't present for the killing and could only testify about "state of mind" - irrelevant when it comes to a murder charge.  And as to Kevorkian's release - it was allegedly for health reasons, after Kevorkian's attorney filed his fourth yearly brief claiming Kevorkian had less than a year to live.

To be fair, I'll give Ebert credit for checking Wikipedia for info on Kevorkian and accurately relaying the findings of the Detroit Free Press findings in their series "The Suicide Machine."  But then Ebert goes off and shares crap like this:

Polls showed that the majority of citizens in his state of Michigan supported him, and a poll taken after his death showed that 75% of Canadians approved of assisted suicide for terminal patients in pain.

I'm not sure what poll is being referred to, but the most important poll - I think it was conveniently never mentioned in the docudrama - was a 1998 ballot initiative to legalize assisted suicide.  The result?  Here's what a recent article in the Detroit Free Press had to say:

Michiganders, by a more than 2-1 margin, voted down a proposal to legalize assisted suicide in 1998.

I worked with Michigan disability activists who helped to fight against that ballot initiative.  I recall that post-election day analysis gave Kevorkian a lot of the blame and/or credit for the defeat of the initiative.

The principal argument against it is religious: God gives life to men, who do not have the right to end it without his will. In a nation which separates church and state, this should not be a valid position. Why should it apply to someone who does not agree with it? If I am in agony, what difference do your beliefs about God make to me? What if I don't believe in God? What if I believe in a more merciful God, who gave me intelligence, free will and responsibility for my life? Why must I suffer because of your more narrow theology?

Stunningly, Ebert blithely claims that all those people getting in the way of the obviously sensible legalization of assisted suicide are people with a "narrow" theology and perspective.

What a shithead.  Ebert recently was honored by Access Living, a prominent Center for Independent Living that serves the disabled people in the City of Chicago.  I fear that when they called him a "national leader" it might have gone to his head.  As a relative newcomer to the world of disability, he's done very well, but he really hasn't got a handle on the rest of the community's values, perspectives or priorities.

Before Ebert writes on this topic again, I'd suggest he read the Assisted Suicide Position Paper published by the National Council on Disability in 1997 with Marca Bristo serving as Chairperson.  Marca Bristo is also the CEO of Access Living.

Ebert continues...

Several times a year we read of someone who assists a spouse, parent, child or partner to die. Sometimes this results in jail sentences. Much more often, I suspect, it happens silently.

Ebert needs to read the news more carefully.  There are out-and-out murders getting written off as murders simply because the victim is old, ill or disabled.  Some of this has gone on right in his back yard.

See, for example, "No Mercy" by Mike Miner of the Chicago Reader on some of the biased coverage of murders of an elderly woman and two disabled men.  There's also this detailed analysis of Chicago media coverage of the 2002 murder of Shirley Harrison.
And here is a brief statement about the "blame the victim" coverage of 4-year-old Katie McCarron's murder in Pekin, IL and its consequences; Katie was autistic.

I don't expect to get any acknowledgment from Ebert that he got anything wrong.  Previous experience during the "Million Dollar Baby" controversy makes it clear that he doesn't get what the objections are from disability rights activists in this area and why they're important.  More, he's perfectly willing to pretend that that those objections don't exist at all.

That's all for now.  By Monday, I'll be critiquing a review of an Oregon documentary sitting in my DVR.  Ebert brought it up and I guess I have to quit putting off watching it.  --Stephen Drake

Kentucky: Man Charged with Murder of Wife While Friends Suggest it Was a "Mercy Killing"

This is a story that has been developing over the past few days and it has more than a few twists.  Here's one of the most comprehensive news stories on the case from Wave3 News in Louisville, KY:

ELIZABETHTOWN, KY (WAVE) - Was it assisted suicide or cold blooded murder? That's the question Michele Daugherty's friends have after the Noblesville, Indiana woman was found dead in an Elizabethtown, Kentucky hotel room. Now her husband is behind bars charged with murder, but some Indiana friends of the couple are wondering if what happened in Elizabethtown was a mercy killing.

It's a strange case that has police investigators seeing a clear cut crime. But friends of Lonnie and Michele Daugherty see a totally different picture - an illness and a way out.

"If she was as sick as I'm hearing, then I could see her not wanting to live," said Howard Struck, a former boyfriend of Michele's in an interview with an Indianapolis television station.

The couple checked into the Holiday Inn Express off Interstate 65 in Elizabethtown a few days ago. They were supposed to check out on Saturday morning and get back on the road. Because the housekeeping staff at the hotel was eager to get the room ready for the next guest, they knocked on the door. Getting no answer, they let themselves in and made a shocking discovery.

"They discover two bodies laying in the bed and it appears to them, both have been deceased," said Officer Virgil Willoughby, an Elizabethtown Police Department spokesperson.

However, police say that wasn't the case. While both husband and wife had injuries to the neck, 56-year-old Michele was strangled, but 37-year-old Lonnie was still breathing. Police say Lonnie Daugherty's wounds were superficial.

"He's interviewed at the hospital where he admits to assisting his wife in committing suicide," Willoughby said.

Back in an Indiana apartment complex where the couple lived until evicted recently, various neighbors have been saying that Michele Daugherty was "dying" from cancer - some saying she had "weeks" to live and others saying it as a few months.

As someone who's been appalled by the irresponsible comments of some pretty stupid cops in other cases, I am impressed with the spokespersons from the Elizabethtown Police Department.  In a number of other cases I've read over the years, the first mention of the term "mercy killing" has come from some clueless cop who based the opionion on nothing other than the victim being old, ill or disabled.  None of that from the Elizabethtown Police - they note he "admits" to assisting suicide, but they're charging him with murder.  There's more from officer Virgil Willoughby here in regard to Michele Daugherty's murder being a "mercy killing.":

"There's no defense, as far as I'm concerned that's going to say, ' Hey, it's OK to go out and kill your wife or husband for that matter," said Willoughby.

"She asked for it" isn't a valid defense.  I'd also imagine the police want more info on her actual health status.  They may also wonder - as I do - why she didn't have sufficient painkillers to kill herself if she was really close to death due to an aggressive cancer.  Most people would choose that over strangulation.

One more thing about this case.  Aside from murder, Lonnie Daugherty is also charged with cruelty to animals.  They had a cat with them.  The cat was found dead in the hotel room and Lonnie admits to strangling the cat, which may account for his "superficial" wounds.

Considering all the arguments I get in over the "we're kinder to animals than we are to humans" crap regarding euthanasia, I'm surprised that this hasn't been discussed in the coverage.

Did they cut out footage of neighbors talking about how - through a tragic coincidence - the cat was also terminally ill?  (Yes - that's sarcasm)

Try to picture a sweet and gentle person lovingly strangling a cat.  If you can do that, you have a much better imagination than I do.

Sometimes, in violent domestic situations, one partner (usually male) will hurt the other person by doing violence to their pet.  It's a possibility to explore at least.

Let's ask the neighbors if they can figure out why the cat was killed, how "grateful" the cat was for the "merciful" death, and how that fits in with their thoughts about how and why Lonnie Daugherty killed Michelle.  It makes sense - after all, no one can claim that Lonnie treated his wife any worse - or better - than he did the cat.  --Stephen Drake

Video below:

Netherlands: One-third of Doctors Willing to Euthanize Patients with Early Dementia

Dutch media are framing the latest survey of medical professionals somewhat differently than I have in the headline here.  Radio Netherlands titles their story "Dutch doctors wary of euthanasia for dementia," while DutchNews.nl features the title "Doctors reluctant to help patients with dementia die."

Both news entitities take pains to minimize the percentage of doctors willing to euthanize patients in an early stage of dementia: Radio Netherlands refers to those willing as "Just 33 percent of Dutch doctors" while DutchNews.nl refers to "Only one third of Dutch doctors" (Emphasis added.)  They seem... what? Relieved? Reassured?

Or is it the rest of the world that they are trying to reassure?  That one-third is really a very small and insignificant percentage of doctors?

To me, the fact that one out of three doctors seems like an awful lot of doctors in the Netherlands are willing to go ahead and perform euthanasia on this (allegedly) new group of "eligibles" is kind of alarming, especially since the other two-thirds are just described as "wary" or "reluctant" - a far cry from "opposed."

Question - do members of the Dutch media feel it's their duty to help "spin" stories in certain ways that cast their country in a more positive light?

Here's the info from the Radio Netherlands story:

Just 33 percent of Dutch doctors are willing to use euthanasia in cases of early dementia, a national survey conducted by three university hospitals shows.

The poll was carried out by the university hospitals of Utrecht, Groningen and Rotterdam, a television programme reported on Saturday.

People with dementia are only able to give their consent to euthanasia in the early stages of the disease. In the later stages, patients are too disoriented to make informed decisions.

The number of people with dementia who have resorted to euthanasia has risen from three in 2006 to 21 in 2010. The overall number of cases of euthanasia has also risen: in 2006 the body responsible for the judicial review of euthanasia cases was informed of 1,900 cases, compared with 2,700 in 2010.

I think it's probably likely the number of these particular medical killings have been underreported, since it's fairly new territory.  Look for the numbers to go up every year for this group of people.

The fact that a majority of physicians are uncomfortable with this practice won't matter.  Back in 2009, I wrote about a discussion of Dutch euthanasia practices with physician Bert Keizer on a Radio Netherlands broadcast.

During that discussion, Dr. Keizer admitted to being very disturbed by the growing acceptance of legalizing the killing of disabled infants.  But, as also came out in the discussion, it didn't matter what Dr. Keizer felt was unacceptable as long as there was another doctor willing to do it.

If anything, the situation is even worse when it comes to dementia in the Netherlands?  If your regular doctor refuses to consider complying with that kind of request, it won't be hard to find someone from the one-third of physicians who are perfectly OK with it.

I'm waiting for the next press release from a "right to die" organization that says there's no evidence of a "slippery slope" in the Netherlands.  I can hardly wait to see what sort of mangled reasoning supports that particular claim.  --Stephen Drake

Crippen's Blog - "Making assisted suicide more accessible?"

Crippen Cartoonist (aka Dave Lupton) is a brilliant cartoonist and a disability rights activist.  In my current mode of "catch-up," I want to point people to his latest blog entry, which as usual, features cartoon, with click-able full text description. 

The latest entry is titled "Making assisted suicide more accessible?!"  Here are the first few paragraphs:

16 June 2011

A non-disabled friend of mine expressed suprise that not only was I unwilling to help him ensure that assisted suicide would be made fully accessible to disabled people, but that I was also very much against the idea of assisted suicide being made legal in the first place!

Recently retired from a life in the medical profession, John is now serving in a voluntary capacity on a panel set up to  address the issue of making assisted suicide legal. In his - in other areas commendable - awareness of disability equality he wanted to make sure that assisted suicide would be equally accessible to disabled people and he wondered if I would be able to help him think through some of the associated issues.

It became clear as I started to explain my position on this subject, that he hadn't considered there would be people vehemently opposed to the whole concept of helping someone commit suicide. His rational medical mind had seen it purely as a way of helping people who were too ill to continue living, and who had made a decision when they'd been able to do so, to obtain assistance to end their life in a dignified and peaceful manner.

Anyone who's a regular reader here or who has entered into this kind of situation can see where this is going.  Sometimes nothing constructive happens at all, sometimes you get through, or at least somewhat.

Read the rest of the blog entry - and the long comment thread - to see how it turned out.  --Stephen Drake

Two recent cases show what it takes to screw up a "mercy killing" defense

As anyone who follows the news of old, ill, and disabled people who get killed by family members or "caregivers," it's all to clear that if the perpetrator claims the act was a "mercy killing," it's frequently a successful defense strategy.  The public tends to believe that the victim would have wanted to die, even if they didn't leave any word behind to say that they wanted to be:

• smothered with a pillow;
• shot in the head;
• given a medication overdose;

or any other highly effective means that family members and "caregivers" have used to kill family members/friends/clients who are old, ill or disabled.

On June 16th, two stories of killers whose "mercy killing" defenses failed came through my news feed.  They are instructive.  They give a pretty good idea as to just what it takes to nullify a "mercy killing" defense. 

The first comes from the Newcastle Herald in Australia:

A CARER who tried to murder his vulnerable and defenceless patient in the middle of the night was jailed for a maximum of eight years yesterday after the judge said it was "far removed from any idea of a mercy killing".

Steven James McLaren, 55, will serve a non-parole period of five years after he told Newcastle District Court that he felt trapped and was "at the end of my tether" caring for Barry Harrison, 61, who suffered from motor neurone disease.

Mr Harrison had only some movement of his head and eyes with McLaren describing him as "more or less a quadriplegic".

McLaren moved in to Mr Harrison's Eleebana home in March 2010, Judge Berman said.

McLaren went into Mr Harrison's bedroom about 2am on October 5, 2010, and adjusted Mr Harrison's bed so Mr Harrison was lying horizontally, which would lead to him choking and dying.

McLaren, who previously pleaded guilty to attempted murder, said he expected Mr Harrison to die quickly and it would look like a natural death.

Instead, Mr Harrison woke, screamed for help and managed to survive for about six hours before a nurse found him on the floor.

The lesson here is, of course, you can't claim that you acted out of mercy if your victim survives and accuses you of trying to murder him.

The second story comes from The Dispatch (Ocean City, MD).  The case involved a 58-year-old man accused of killing his 85-year-old mother:

SNOW HILL -- After delivering a 30-minute dissertation on how much he cared for his late elderly mother and how much money he spent on that care, a Pennsylvania man last Friday was sentenced to 25 years in prison for repeatedly running her over on a rural road in northern Worcester County last August.

 More...

From the beginning, Steven Molin did not deny running over his mother as many as three times, but claimed the incident was an accident, caused in part by a faulty passenger side door on the 2008 Chevy work truck damaged in a different accident earlier in the day. However, a Worcester County Sheriff’s Office accident reconstructionist, after reviewing the physical evidence and interviewing Molin, determined the victim had been run over three times despite ample opportunity for the suspect to avoid hitting her after the first collision.

The takeaway here is that you'd better claim it was a "mercy killing" from the outset.  Claiming the death was an "accident" and changing over to the "mercy killing" defense doesn't work - especially when a car is the murder weapon.

Of course, these cases are fairly unusual, most homicides defended as acts of mercy, the accused are careful to make sure the victim actually died (obviously, hence the use of "homicide" here).  Additionally, most perpetrators avoid using knives or blunt force, preferring guns, suffocation and medication overdoses.  Making a token attempt on one's own life also helps with defense.

Sheesh.  No wonder so many people get away with murders of this type.  You have to be a special kind of stupid to screw it up as in the two cases linked above.  No less guilty or malicious than the "successful" killers, just a lot less intelligent.  --Stephen Drake 

American Medical News - "Kevorkian leaves mixed legacy" (NDY Quoted)

Since I was interviewed for this article in American Medical News, I was actively looking for its appearance online this morning.  The interview with the reporter lasted almost 45 minutes and covered a lot of ground, most of which didn't get included in this relatively short article.  It is an attempt to explore the "legacy" that Kevorkian left us.

Below are come excerpts from the article Dr. Kevorkian leaves mixed legacy by Carolyne Krupa:

The death of pathologist Jack Kevorkian, MD, left many pondering the long-term influence of a highly controversial figure and what role he may have played in transforming the nation's perception of dying.

Some think his aggressive push for physician-assisted suicide forced the medical profession to take a closer look at care of the terminally ill. But others say Dr. Kevorkian lacked a sense of proper medical ethics and that his actions were motivated more by a desire to advance his agenda than compassion for patients.

There were four "experts" interviewed - and I am one of the four.  The other were Michael Paletta, MD, "vice president of medical affairs for Hospice of Michigan and executive director of the hospice's Maggie Allesee Center for Quality of Life;" Peg Sandeen, Executive Director of Death With Dignity National Center, one of the two largest assisted suicide advocacy organizations in the US; and Timothy E. Quill, MD, who is described as "a professor of medicine, psychiatry and medical humanities at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) School of Medicine and Dentistry" and also as someone who "supports physician-assisted death only as a last resort." (more on this at the end of the blog entry)

Here's the part from me, with some comments and clarification:

Dr. Kevorkian was particularly harmful to people with disabilities, said Stephen Drake, a research analyst with Not Dead Yet. The Rochester, N.Y.-based organization opposes legalized assisted suicide and was founded in 1996 in response to Dr. Kevorkian's acquittal in the assisted suicides of two women with nonterminal conditions.


Dr. Kevorkian's image has been sanitized by the media, which painted him largely as a hero to the suffering, Drake said. Many ignore that before he became famous, Dr. Kevorkian wrote extensively about his desire to allow human experimentation, he said.

Another concern is that Dr. Kevorkian and the media never looked at the social factors around the people whose suicides he assisted, Drake said. Other factors, such as marital or mobility problems, may have contributed to their desperation and helplessness, he added.

Ignoring those social factors demonstrates some of society's prejudices to assume that simply having a disability would be cause enough to want to die, without looking more in-depth at the individual's personal troubles, Drake said.

For the record - I never refer to Jack Kevorkian as "Dr."

Readers of this blog will know that the comment about Kevorkian's advocacy of human experimentation is incomplete.  His agenda was always to use "planned death" (execution, infanticide, assisted suicide, etc.) as an opportunity to keep someone alive and sedated for a few hours or days while experimenting on them, followed by organ harvesting.  His assisted suicide activities were part of that agenda.

Likewise, when "mobility" is mentioned as a social problem, I wasn't talking about the impact of the mobility impairment itself, but the frustration, anger and despair that was a factor in at least one person who went to Kevorkian who waited endless months for a proper wheelchair - which finally arrived a few days after his death at Kevorkian's hands.

Also, Kevorkian's acquittal wasn't the only catalyst for the formation of NDY.  There were also two court cases going to the Supreme Court arguing for a constitutional right to assisted suicide.  One of those cases was Vacco v. Quill - that's the same "Quill" who is one of the "experts" interviewed for the article.

Quill's limited indentification in terms of his relevance to the story is a problem in this article and how he is often identified in the press.  Quill doe not just "support" assisted suicide, he is a leading advocate of legalization and has been one since 1991. The summary of his efforts put toward legalization are summarized neatly on the Death With Dignity National Center website, where he is on the board of directors for both the organization and its Political Action Committee:

Quill has lectured widely and published numerous articles, including a 1991 New England Journal of Medicine article about "Diane," a dying patient who requested assistance in dying. Quill is the author of four books, Physician Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care and Patient Choice (Johns Hopkins University Press, co-edited with Margaret Battin), Caring for Patients at the End of Life: Facing an Uncertain Future Together (Oxford University Press), A Midwife Through the Dying Process, Stories of Healing and Hard Choices at the End of Life (Johns Hopkins University Press), and Death and Dignity: Making Choices and Taking Charge (W.W. Norton). He was the lead physician plaintiff in the New York State legal case challenging the law prohibiting physician aid in dying—Quill v. Vacco.

This also means that two out of the four sources used for this article are essentially both representatives of Death With Dignity National Center.  As I mentioned before, Quill is often described this way in assisted suicide articles and it is dishonest.  In an article about assisted suicide, someone who is a prominent political advocate of legalization should be identified that way.

If Tim Quill were really ethical, he would insist on being identified that way so that readers would be better able to evaluate his comments in relation to his position as a stakeholder in the debate.  --Stephen Drake

The American Muslim (publication) - "Euthanasia: a Modest Proposal" by Rev. Frank Julian Gelli

It's been a long couple of weeks.  The month started with the death of Jack Kevorkian and a nonstop barrage of eulogizing and mythologizing his life.  This week, we had the sorry spectacle of Terry Pratchett's "infomercial" on assisted suicide featuring the spectacle of another rich disabled man drinking some poison and dying on camera.

It all gets old very fast.

I was on the lookout for something a little different.  I'm a little tired right now to thumb my own nose at the promoters of assisted suicide and euthanasia - and to have it come off convincingly.

So, instead, I found someone who is thumbing his nose at them and sharing his message with you.  It was just what I needed this Friday.

From The American Muslim, here are the first paragraphs to Euthanasia: a Modest Proposal by Rev. Frank Julian Gelli:

It is in the air. Eu and Thanatos. Two Greek words, meaning a ‘good death’.


Sir Terry Pratchett, science fiction novelist and Alzheimer sufferer, made a documentary about ‘assisted dying’. The aim: to make euthanasia legal in Britain. Sir Terry’s wife is not in favour, apparently, but he is. Golly! Verily, the Book of Proverbs is right, ‘a good wife is worth more than rubies’. I confess: If I had a wife, I would like her to be like Mrs Pratchett.

Euthanasia-talk is topical indeed. Elderly people in British care homes are victims of spending cuts. The quality of their care is deteriorating. Privatisation has resulted in falling standards. The financial crisis bites. State support is short. It can’t go on like this. And so on.

Good death fans of course swear up and down that it is voluntary euthanasia they are proposing. No one would be forced to top himself. Fair enough, conceptually. Still, when I was a parish priest I have dealt long enough in funerals and bereavements to be perhaps a wee bit sceptical of the happy concept. Where there is will, there is a way. Geddit?

That, however, you can argue, is carping. We must take the bull by the horns. Tackle the problem at the roots. Enough of pussyfooting. Time has time to be truly radical.

In 1729 the Irish writer Jonathan Swift published his pamphlet, A Modest Proposal for Preventing Children of Poor People in Ireland from being a Burden to the People or Parents…’etcetera. Simply put, Swift suggested that the large, excess child population of Ireland should be eaten. A one year old’s flesh was most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, the great man averred.

It was a brilliant, stupendous idea. Because it bypassed the matter of the child’s voluntary submission to his lot. At the age of one, children are not capable of consent, so the matter of their agreeing to being eaten could not arise. It was ideal, moral, socially useful cannibalism.  Swift was a genius.

So am I. A genius-like priest.  Immodestly, I propose something similar. Let us eat the old folks. It not fair they should feel useless cast-offs. Their dignity demands they should have a use. As food. Let us eat them.

You can see where this is going, of course.  The good Rev. has done a nice job with this one, although I'd argue it would be a little stronger without the last paragraph.  But that's a matter of taste more than anything.

If you're in the mood to read something that treats Terry Pratchett and his fellow euthanasia enthusiasts with the appropriate amount of (dis)respect, please read the rest of Rev. Gelli's essay here.

It was a great read for a Friday and getting in a better mood for the weekend.  --Stephen Drake

Yesterday's Joke Becoming Today's Reality - Death Row and Assisted Suicide

Back on April 1, 1998 I sent out an obviously bogus press release from an email address I reserved for just such purposes.  It was an attempt at some (I thought) outrageous satire, taking pro-assisted suicide arguments based on "quality of life" to one of their many logical conclusions.  What would happen, I wondered, when civil libertarians opposed to the death penalty found that position in conflict with their support of assisted suicide.  I didn't doubt for a minute which would win out.

Here's my fiction from 13 years ago:

Los Angeles - April 1, 1998
Affiliated Press

    At a press conference today, the American Civil Liberties Union Announced
it would be supporting the request of a death row prisoner to obtain assisted
suicide.  Sid Nasty, who has been on death row for 5 years awaiting the outcome
of appeals in his death sentence in the slaying of 5 girl scouts, has applied
for assistance in committing suicide.
   Nasty, in an appeal filed yesterday, contends that his present quality of
life is unacceptable and seeks to voluntarily end his "suffering" and
"meaningless existence".  Nasty says that even if his death sentence is
commuted, the best he can hope for is a life sentence with no hope for parole.
   Nasty, in a taped presentation, explained: "Hell, I figure the ACLU has
helped cripples in nursing homes to escape being locked up with no hope of
parole.  Why should they get the right to die and I don't?  The food may be a
little better in here than in a nursing home, but aside from that, it's pretty
much the same".
   This action of the ACLU stands in stark contrast to its actions in the case
of Gary Gilmore, who asked that all appeals on his behalf be withdrawn so he
could be executed by a firing squad.  The ACLU argued that Gilmore was
depressed by the circumstances of his incarceration and could not be making an
informed choice in the matter.  ACLU spokesperson Sol Phistry explained that
the ACLU was firm in opposing the death penalty then and now.
   "Nasty's appeals for a commutation of sentence will stay in place.  Gillmore
was asking for the state to execute him.  Nasty is asking the state to allow
him to release himself from an untenable existence.  He will be administering
the lethal injection to himself, not some flunkie hired by the prison.  This is
about choice.
   "Jack Kevorkian, a pioneer in the right to die, said it best; to paraphrase
him: "The voluntary self-elimination of murderers, rapists and other felons,
taken collectively can only serve to enhance the public health and welfare." (emphasis added.)

Who says I don't have a whimsical side?

One one of the email lists this got posted two, an ACLU board member (don't remember if it was a state or the national board) commented that the author had an "overactive imagination."

Well, here's today's news - from the state of Oregon.  In fact, it's from Portland Tribune reporter Peter Korn - the same reporter and same paper that exposed the Oregon Board of Nursing as a sham - that consistently protected the jobs and licenses of nurses over the health and welfare of patients.

This latest story is titled Three Needles.  Six Minutes.  The End.

Excerpt:

T. Allen Bethel has met his exception. A gentle and thoughtful man, Bethel is senior pastor of Maranatha Church in Northeast Portland. He and other Portland-area clergy are well aware that on Aug. 16 the state Department of Corrections is scheduled to put convicted killer Gary Haugen to death in the first Oregon state execution in 14 years.

Most members of the local faith community who take up the highly charged issue these days speak out against the death penalty, though there are certainly clergy on both sides.

Proponents and opponents know that the issue is framed differently here because Oregon is also home to physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

Physician-assisted suicide essentially allows individuals to say they would rather die than live in circumstances they cannot bear. Haugen went to Marion County Circuit Court to ask that he be put to death rather than live out his life in the Oregon State Penitentiary.

When he considers those two ideas, Bethel, a staunch opponent of capital punishment, says maybe Haugen should get his wish.

“My belief is, I would fight for his life,” Bethel says. “But each of us has the right to say what I want or do not want done with my body.”

Oregon’s lethal injection execution system uses three sterilized needles and takes about six minutes for the combination of drugs to kill the prisoner. The state has used the lethal injection method since Oregon’s capital punishment was reinstated in 1984. Prior to that, Oregon executed prisoners for many years in a gas chamber.

There's more from another member of the clergy that goes farther:

...the Rev. Lynne Smouse Lopéz, pastor at Ainsworth United Church of Christ in Alameda, says she’s pretty sure most of her congregation are against it. As for her personal view, Lopéz says, “I’ve always been against the death penalty and always will be, I’m sure.”

Lopéz believes that everyone is redeemable and that putting someone to death denies that possibility.

“What I have to believe is that everybody has good in them,” Lopéz says. “We are created in the image of God. …We can be broken, but I also believe we can be healed and be made whole. Some people maybe have to be kept away from society to protect themselves and others, but I just cannot give up on them as human beings.”

As for Haugen asking for his own execution, Lopéz admits to equivocation.

“I’d rather we then say, ‘It’s OK if he wants physician-assisted suicide, but not put to death in an execution.’ ” (emphasis added.)

OK - so this isn't about the ACLU, but about members of the clergy in Oregon.  To be fair, there is a spread of opinion in that community reflected in the article.  But in the two I've highlighted - especially in the case of  Rev. Lopéz - the logic in terms of being OK with the wish to die based on a "quality of life" argument is virtually identical to my April Fools press release from 1998.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard of the ACLU filing in opposition to a prisoner who wanted appeals to their execution stopped.

It makes sense - we have a group of people that are shunned, devalued, and increasing numbers of taxpayers see as an unnecessary drain on public resources.  Only this time, we're talking about death row prisoners instead of old, ill and disabled people.  I can see people becoming more comfortable with this idea, just as seems to be the case with applauding and encouraging the suicides of old, ill and disabled people.

I'd better be careful when I write phony "outrageous" press releases in the future.  Or at least redefine what "outrageous" means to me.  --Stephen Drake

UK - Dominic Lawson: Why the disabled fear assisted suicide

The following are excerpts from an excellent piece by columnist Dominic Lawson.  He arranged to visit SCOPE, the UK disability charity that published the results of a survey earlier this year, finding that 70% of disabled respondents expressed concerns about their own safety if assisted suicide was legalized in the UK.

Lawson was allowed to watch and listen to a focus group - one of many SCOPE is conducting to get more qualitative data - through a one-way glass.  From comments Lawson makes in his column, I'm assuming that group participants were informed of his observation, although I'd like it stated a little more clearly.

The following are excerpts from Lawson's column in the June 14th edition of The Independent.  It's titled Why the disabled fear assisted suicide:

Last month Scope released one of the results, a poll by ComRes, which revealed that no fewer than 70 per cent of disabled people are concerned that the changes in the law advocated by Pratchett would create pressure on vulnerable patients to "end their lives prematurely". Scope has also been conducting focus groups of people with cerebral palsy, in order to add qualitative research to the quantitative findings of pollsters; the charity invited me to attend one of these encounters, and to observe many hours of such discussions from behind one-way glass alongside a group of its full-time employees.

The bulk of the column is devoted to stories about threats already being encountered, fear of an uncertain future and even fear of one's own family.  The following is almost at the end of Lawson's column:

The opinions expressed by "Bill" and Andy had a striking effect on Valerie Lang, a 71-year-old from Islington in north London. Valerie admitted that her mind had been "substantially changed" by what she had heard. At the end of the meeting she said: "I know there will come a time when my body won't have given out, but my patience jolly well will; and I will want to go to Dignitas when that happens. But I have been reminded of how vulnerable people, less strong-minded than me, can be open to suggestion." 

Valerie had told the group earlier that she had spent 20 years "falling in and out of depression" until therapy had enabled her to come to terms with her cerebral palsy. Since then she had had a remarkable life, despite her severe disability: she had become a senior research officer in the Civil Aviation Authority's Economics Division and since her retirement had, as she put it, "sat on many committees, but have now reduced these to about six". It is easy to see how under a system of legalised assisted suicide, Valerie's earlier years of depression at her condition might well have been ended; and as Richard Hawkes points out, "the thing about suicide is that it doesn't allow for second thoughts". 

Something else Valerie said at the meeting struck me as dreadfully sad: "When I was younger, if I fell over in the street two or three people would always rush to pick me up. Now people just walk past. I am no longer even part of the scenery." 

That is the state of mind, on both sides, in which assisted suicide for the severely physically disabled could so insidiously turn from being a liberating option into something more like an oppressive social obligation.

The only thing I'll add here is that the way that Valerie gets ignored when she falls over in the street these strikes me as more than "sad."  It strikes me as one more symptom of a (nondisabled) population that view us with disdain, scorn and even resentment.

Please read the rest for yourself by clicking here.  --Stephen Drake

Disability Activists in the UK Push Back Against BBC and Terry Pratchett Promotion of Assisted Suicide

Our disabled allies in the UK are currently experiencing - and fighting against - a potentially deadly assault on their lives and freedom.  The UK Government proposes to severely cut the many parts of the social safety net that disabled people of all ages depend on to live - and many just barely managing on current supports.  At the same time, the pro-euthanasia campaign seems to be increasing in power - both politically and in the media.

It sounds a little like the United States, doesn't it?

Truthfully, people in the US who are old, ill, poor and/or disabled haven't gotten to feel the full brunt of the budget axe yet, but we can see it coming.  I reckon we're a year or two at most until we're really facing the realities of what are now merely threats (for the most part).  And - especially after the non-stop eulogizing of Kevorkian over the past couple of weeks, we can certainly feel the sentiment in terms of legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide gaining ground.  And it looks like there are more people who are willing to admit that they're not just talking about the "terminally ill."  They even get kindly clueless Dr. Sanjay Gupta to give them the opportunity to proselytize to a national audience.

No two countries are alike, but nevertheless we should take what lessons we can from our brothers and sisters in the UK.  They're fighting battles that may be just as imminent for us within a very short time.

Last night the BBC aired a "documentary" by fantasy writer Terry Pratchett.  Pratchett was diagnosed with a form of demential a couple of years ago.  Since then, he's used his popularity, wealth and influence to do everything he can to push legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia forward.  As a rich disabled guy, this self-absorbed a-hole, Pratchett hasn't, to my knowledge, said one word about the dismantling of the social safety net that other - less wealthy - disabled people are facing.  In this latest BBC show, Pratchett showed a person at Dignitas taking a lethal drink and dying.

Enough from me.

On the blog Disabled People Fight Back, Miss Dennis Queen (aka Clair Lewis) put up two posts today in regard two posts outlining a disability response:

Challenging Pratchett & Designer Deaths: Assisted Suicide is deadly discrimination

Fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett has already written his life's final chapter. For it to work, we'd need to destroy medical & human rights legislation and principles protecting sick & disabled people and our lives. Not only is this selfish and arrogant, but should he achieve his goal, many lives would be put at risk.

Terry Pratchett wants all sick & disabled people who are suffering to be given access to deathly medications - not all people who wish to end their lives - just us sick ones.  This is a deadly form of discrimination.

Disability rights activists in the Disabled people's movement such as D.A.N. and Not Dead Yet and the newer UK network of the same name have been fighting the flow of popular opinion on this for a very long time, but our voices are rarely included in the debate. At the very least there should be some balance in the debate.

In his position of privilege, can Terry even know or understand what difficulties most of us face, or why we face them? Is a newly disabled, well off, writer of fiction qualified to make such huge social decisions on our behalf? He is not suffering the neglect so many face, or the pressures to not be a burden. He is out of touch with the struggles of most people with serious impairments and illnesses. How can he know what is right for the rest of us?

Pratchett's documentary tonight on BBC made a completely one-sided bid to show how wanted and 'good' death clinics are, despite it being common medical knowledge that most people in severe health situations want to be supported to live as long as we can.

 Read the rest of the post here.

ACTION NOTICE: Fight BBC bias towards assisted suicide! Just takes 10 minutes 

It's time to complain to the BBC again and push for balance. Despite more than a year of us poking them, pointing out the one-sidedness of what they choose to air on voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, BBC are continuing to advance and weight debate about this life and death issue.  

This influences public opinion and is not a representation of the complex debates going on. People do have a right to choice and part of that is being given access to ALL the information.

Last night's documentary from Terry Pratchett about assisted suicide contained no detailed balancing view.

Debates afterards on Newsnight were weighted against the sole disability rights activist there (Liz Carr) and one religious representative.

BBC online news last night gave brief overview on this matter:

Ms Carr said: "I and many other disabled older and terminally ill people, are quite fearful of what legalising assisted suicide would do and mean and those arguments aren't being debated, teased out, the safeguards aren't being looked at.

"Until we have a programme that does that, then I won't be happy to move onto this wider debate."

Read the rest of the post here, which includes a link to a BBC complaint form and a 5-step set of instructions to to ease the process.  

And if you think it's unfair or paranoid to link the economic crisis to the rise in pro-euthanasia propaganda, I'd advise people to go back and read this post, which highlighted the following quote from Hemlock Society Founder and Final Exit Network advisor Derek Humphry, writing with author Mary Clement in 2000:

"Similar to other social issues, the right-to-die movement has not arisen separate and distinct from other concurrent developments of our time. In attempting to answer the question Why Now?, one must look at the realities of the increasing cost of health care in an aging society, because in the final analysis, economics, not the quest for broadened individual liberties or increased autonomy, will drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptable practice. As technology advances, as medical costs skyrocket out of control, as chronic diseases predominate, as the projected rate of the eighty-five-and-older population accelerates, as managed care seeks to cut costs and as Medicare is predicted to go bankrupt by 2007, the impetus of cost containment provide impetus, whether openly acknowledged or not, for the practicalities of an assisted death.” (Emphasis added.)

--Stephen Drake

In Memorium: The Things NDYers Have Said About Kevorkian Over the Years

First, specific airing of Largest Minority on WBAI mentioned earlier this week is now archived in mp3 format.  You can listen to the show if you missed it and still want to check it out.

Today, a public and private funeral and memorial was held for Jack Kevorkian.  I won't link to the press coverage - it's all predictably nauseating.

But I thought it would be appropriate to do a different kind of memorial right here.  In order to appropriately "honor" Kevorkian's memory, I've searched the internet and some of our archives to provide a glimpse of what disability advocates and activists - inside and outside of NDY - have had to say about the man over the years.

This isn't an exhaustive list.  Through several moves and computer changes, there are some significant press releases, flyers, articles and press coverage I can't get my hands on right now.  I'll try to develop some sort of plan to go about gathering and organizing our archives.  For now, please enjoy these.  --Stephen Drake

1993

Disabled Need Care - Not a Visitation by Dr. Kevorkian by Edward John Hudak

1996

Press Release: Disability Activists Declare War on Kevorkian
A High Defends Quality of Life by Mark O'Brien (archive.org)


1997

 Welcome to Kevorky's Kosmos by editor of Ragged Edge.
Those ol' Kevorkian blues by Mary Johnson


1998


The Tactics of Survival by CK Montgomery

1999

The Meaning of 'Murderer' by Cal Montgomery
Dr. Death on trial in Philadelphia by Jimmi Schrode
Self-execution for witches by Mary Krane Derr
Busy - But Not Dead Yet (profile) by Mary Johnson
Deadly Tactics - by Diane Coleman

2000

A battle waged in Boston: right to die vs. will to live by John B Kelly

ALERT - NDY Discussion of Kevorkian and Assisted Suicide on WBAI Tonight!

Sorry for the late notice, but I'll be on Largest Minority Radio Show on WBAI tonight.  The show starts at 9:00 pm ET.  I'll be on around 9:25 or so.  Here's the description of the show and how to listen in:

Our next show airs Wednesday, June 8th, at 9:00pm on WBAI.  Our guests will include Aaron Bishop from the National Council on Disability, discussing a Congressional forum they hosted recently regarding the budget proposals currently circulating in Washington.  We'll also discuss the recent death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian with Stephen Drake, Research Analyst from Not Dead Yet.  Tune in, 9:00pm Eastern at 99.5FM in New York or streaming at wbai.org!

I'd recommend tuning in at 9:00 pm to listen to the first part on the budget proposals floating around DC.  These proposals are of life-and-death importance to disabled people of all ages!

Link to WBAI is here.

Click here tonight to listen live (multiple formats supported)

Like the idea of a disability-oriented show?  Like tonight's show?

If you're on Facebook, go the Largest Minority Radio Show page and "like" it.

That's all for now.  Be talking to y'all later tonight!  --Stephen Drake

A little bit about the REAL Jack Kevorkian - In His Own Words

It seems that a fair number of people are surprised - even stunned - that me or any disabled person has anything at all bad to say about Kevorkian.  The fact is, as a spoof.com writer put it, most supporters of Jack Kevorkian are "f--king uninformed idiot(s)".

I think that's a fair label for people who don't want to know any more lest they be challenged to reappraise their opinions of Kevorkian. But I think there are some folks - especially in the disability community, who might want to take a look at some things the mainstream media somehow missed.

In the HBO docudrama, careful viewers might have caught a brief discussion regarding Kevorkian's publication of a book, following the publicity surrounding the assisted suicide of Janet Adkins.  The book in question - Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death - detailed Kevorkian's history of advocacy regarding live, lethal human experimentation, which went otherwise unmentioned in the movie.

Before he started aiding the suicides of oppressed, despairing ill, old and disabled people, Kevorkian was most well-known for his campaign to start a new "ethic" toward death and human experimentation. He began his campaign in the 1950s, urging legislation that would allow death row prisoners to elect to be put to death through general anesthesia. There was a catch, though. They would also have to agree to be kept alive for hours or days while surgical experiments were performed on them.  (I'm assuming Susan Sarandon didn't know about this part of his past.  Judging from publicity statements, she was perfectly OK with his aiding the suicides of despairing disabled women.  I think she'd be less OK with experiments on death row prisoners.  Most people I hang out with don't like either idea or practice.)

So shortly after his assisted suicide crusade began, Kevorkian tried to tell his adoring public what his real goals were.

1991 book . On page 214 of Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death, Kevorkian admitted that assisting "suffering or doomed persons kill themselves" was "merely the first step, an early distasteful professional obligation.…What I find most satisfying," he wrote, "is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish — in a word obitiatry."(Obitriatry was Kevorkian's name for his wished-for medical specialty which would involve facilitating deaths, and exploiting the individuals in the killing process through experimentation and organ harvesting.)


Kevorkian's advocacy wasn't limited to death row prisoners and it wasn't limited to people who could express a wish to be killed. Below is an excerpt from a 1988 article in which he describes examples of "daring" experiments that could be performed if his system of ethics were to be adopted. The example below is the last of eleven examples. I've also included his remarks following the "case example."

A full-term infant born with spina bifida, paraplegia, and hydrocephalus is transferred, once proper consent and authorization have been obtained, to an obitorium for research hitherto conducted in rats be researchers interested in the hepatic metabolism of prostaglandin. Test material is given to the anesthetized infant by stomach tube. Two hours later the abdominal cavity is opened, and the intact stomach, small intestine, and liver are removed separately for preservation and subsequent processing for chemical analysis. Meanwhile the infant's heart and lungs are removed for transplantation elsewhere.

The above fanciful events credibly exemplify several almost self-evident points. First, obitiatry would make it possible to conduct daring and highly imaginative research beyond the constraints of traditional but outmoded, hopelessly inadequate, and essentially irrelevant ethical codes now sustained for the most part by vacuous sentimental reverence. Second, the proposed innovation should be extolled by animal rights advocates, because it would eliminate the need for animals now sacrificed unnecessarily in many aspects of academic and industrial research. As a corollary, the advocated practice wold minimize inadvertent human pain and suffering in the conduct of experimental clinical trials of new drugs, devices, or procedures by serving as an intermediate buffer stage between those trials and the first probing experiments on laboratory animals. Finally, taken together, these advantages not only represent a substantial easing of the strain on research budgets; but much more importantly, they help accelerate the medical progress so highly prized in our time. (p. 9)

Kevorkian, Jack. The last fearsome taboo: Medical aspects of planned death. Medicine and Law, vol. 7, pp. 1-14

So -- anyone out there thinking Jack Kevorkian was a humanitarian and hero - this is what he stood for and it's what you're applauding when you applaud his "career."  --Stephen Drake

Reality Check - Factual Information on Jack Kevorkian from a Surprising Source

Anyone who is familiar with this blog or has actually done some research on Jack Kevorkian knows that a lot of the news coverage related to his death has been pretty crappy.  The New York Times, Huffington Post - even William Saletan at Slate - credit Kevorkian as someone who "helped" the "terminally ill" (although Saletan thinks he slipped on occasion and accidentally helped the suicide of someone who wasn't dying).

As you can see from checking the resources on a recent post here, the claim that Jack Kevorkian's campaign was aimed at helping the "terminally ill" is a load of fetid dingo kidneys.  He never claimed (at least in his writings or before being managed by Mayer Morganroth) to be just concerned with "terminally ill" people.  Kevorkian had a broader calling. 

One of the few places you'll see it laid out is in a piece at the satire site Spoof.com.

When you click on a link to a satirical article at Spoof, you are directed first to a disclaimer page, in which you are warned:

The story you are trying to access may cause offense, may be in poor taste, or may contain subject matter of a graphic nature.

This story was written as a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

In most cases, that's an accurate warning.  And, to be fair, the article in question may be offensive to a lot of people.

But everything in the article is true.

Doubt that?  Here's a sample of "Response To Those Who Believe That Jack Kevorkian was An Angel Of Mercy":

With respect to those that believe that Jack Kevorkian was a benevolent Angel of Mercy: You're a f--king uninformed idiot.

Are you aware that at least 60 percent of Kevorkian's suicide patients were not terminal? Do you know that at least 17 could have lived indefinitely? Are you aware that in THIRTEEN cases, Kevorkian killed people that had NO complaints of pain or quality of life issues?

Obviously not. Dolt.

Before rendering your opinion, did you know that in 1992, Kevorkian wrote it is always mandatory to bring in a psychiatrist because a person's "mental state is . . . of paramount importance," yet, in at least 19 cases, Kevorkian did not contact psychiatrists? Or that in at least five of these cases, the people who died had histories of depression?

Doubt it. Asshat.

There's more.  But you get the drift.  The author - defamationstation - is sharing more factual information about Jack Kevorkian than you'll find reading CNN, Washington Post, or the New York Times (with the exception of one column by Ross Douthat, which I'll write about later tonight or tomorrow morning).

That's the world we live in, apparently.  The so-called "respected" news sources and columnists give us an inaccurate and sanitized account of Jack Kevorkian.  Instead, we have to go to humor site - where it can get published only because it runs under the guise of being satire - and fictional.

Maybe some of the so-called news media - print, online, etc. - ought to consider running a disclaimer warning people that some of their content might be fictional and they'll have to sort the fiction from the fact for themselves.  That would be some real truth in reporting.

The Lighter Side of Kevorkian's Death (humor and satire alert)

I figured there might be more of this, but here are a couple of very irreverent reactions to Kevorkian's death.

Andy Borowitz writes that Paul Ryan Vows to Continue Kevorkian's Work:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In a somber Congressional ceremony, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) eulogized the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian today, vowing to “honor his legacy by continuing his good work.”

“Dr. Kevorkian tried to ease the transition of seniors into the great beyond,” an emotional Rep. Ryan told his colleagues in the House of Representatives.  “Here in Congress, we have the opportunity – one might even say the obligation – to continue Kevorkian’s work on a grander scale.”

As a first step to memorialize the work of Dr. Kevorkian, Rep. Ryan said that his new budget plan would replace Medicare with a system of so-called “Kevouchers” that could be redeemed for cyanide pills, nooses and bullets. (h/t to Marilyn Golden and Sheila Boyd)

And from The Onion:

Man Dies All By Himself.  (h/t) to April Shiebler

There's another one I found over the weekend, but it brings up some issues that merit a separate post, which will come later today.  --Stephen Drake

Some Information resources on Jack Kevorkian

I suspect that over  the next few days we might see some first-time visitors to this blog - and many of them will be curious as to just what kind of factual information is out there about Kevorkian that is absent in just about all of the media coverage.  Below is a non-exhaustive list of some easily accessible sources that give you some information on Jack Kevorkian's background, career and motivations.  A lot of it will be completely new information to you - if you've been getting you're info from sources such as the New York Times or HBO's "You Don't Know Jack."

• The Real Jack Kevorkian - Comprehensive fact sheet on Jack Kevorkian produced by the Patients Rights Council (previously named the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force).
• SUICIDE MACHINE, PART 1: Kevorkian rushes to fulfill his clients' desire to die - From the Detroit Free Press.  Part of a series published in 1997 that examined the first known 47 of Kevorkian's "clients."
• More women than men sought Kevorkian's help - 2000 AP article that summarizes research on Kevorkian clients conducted by Julie Malphurs and Donna J Cohen.
• The All-Too-Familiar-Story - published in 2001, it discusses how the press repeatedly "discovers" that most of Kevorkian's clients weren't terminally ill, then forgets about it so that it "discovers" it again a few years later.

Also of Interest...

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ARE ENTITLED TO DIGNITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE: A STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO HONORING DR. JACK KEVORKIAN - From 2000, a statement opposing the Gleitsman Foundation's plans to honor Jack Kevorkian with a "humanitarian" award.  The statement is endorsed by a long list of leaders and activists in the realm of social justice, including Bob Kafka, Martin Sheen, Paul Longmore and Justin Dart.

More to come - Stephen Drake

PRESS RELEASE: NDY Activists React to News of Kevorkian's Death

For Immediate Release

June 3, 2011

Contact:

Stephen Drake, Research Analyst

585-697-1640; sndrake@aol.com

Diane Coleman, President

708-420-0539; ndycoleman@aol.com

Disability Activists React to News of Kevorkian’s Death

Anti-euthanasia disability rights group formed in response to Kevorkian’s 1996 acquittal in deaths of two disabled women

Challenge members of the media to get their facts straight.

(Rochester, NY) Approximately ten years after his attorney filed the first of four annual appeals for early prison release repeatedly claiming Kevorkian had less than a year to live, Jack Kevorkian died today at the age of 83.

Today, speaking from their office in Rochester, NY, two spokespersons for the grassroots disability rights organization Not Dead Yet made the following statements:

“While it may be culturally correct to refrain from speaking ill of the dead, the fact is that like many other disability activists, I viewed Kevorkian as an opportunist and an exploiter of other people’s despair.  Many chronically ill and disabled people got suicide assistance from him when some help ending social isolation, spousal or family abandonment, discrimination, and financial troubles would have led them to want to go on with their lives,” said Not Dead Yet Research Analyst Stephen Drake. 

“As a disabled woman, I was disgusted and alarmed with how easily society accepted and even applauded Kevorkian’s “help” in the suicides of disabled women.  Like many women, I’ve gone through periods of isolation and desperation – and was lucky to have friends see that I needed support,” said Diane Coleman, President of Not Dead Yet.  “It seems that when a disabled woman says she wants to kill herself that no one – not the Kevorkian juries, not the press, not even many people in the general public – look for reasons beyond the wheelchair the woman sits in as a valid reason for wanting to die.”

Drake added that the initial wave of press coverage announcing Kevorkian’s death has perpetuated the totally inaccurate description of Kevorkian’s body count as people who were “terminally ill.”  He mentioned the New York Times, New York Magazine and Huffington Post as specific examples of sloppy and inaccurate reporting.  In contrast, studies reported in such publications as the New England Journal of Medicine have concluded that seventy percent of those assisted by Kevorkian were disabled and not terminal.

Both Coleman and Drake attended the trial of Jack Kevorkian on second degree murder charges due to his televised killing of Thomas Youk through lethal injection.  Youk had Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).  Not Dead Yet organized an ongoing courtroom presence as well as a daily vigil outside the Oakland County Courthouse, in which over 50 disability activists participated at one time or another.

Diane Coleman and Stephen Drake have written and lectured extensively on Jack Kevorkian, his history, and his importance to the pro-euthanasia movement.  They are available for media interviews using the contact information at the top of this release.

About Not Dead Yet: Not Dead Yet was founded on April 27,1996, shortly after Jack Kevorkian was acquitted in the assisted suicides of two women with non-terminal disabilities. In a 1997 Supreme Court rally, the outcry of 500 people with disabilities chanting "Not Dead Yet" was heard around the world. Since then, eleven other national disability rights groups have joined NDY in opposing legalized assisted suicide, chapters have taken action in over 30 states, and we helped put Jack Kevorkian behind bars in 1999.  Not Dead Yet continues to help lead and organize the disability community in resisting the legalization of assisted suicide, euthanasia and other public policy proposals that threaten the lives of people with disabilities.

Contact:

Not Dead Yet, 497 State Street, Rochester  NY  14608

Phone: 585-697-1640

http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/

###

Five Things a "TakePart.com" Author Really DIDN'T Know About Assisted Suicide

You learn something new every day.  Before today, I was totally unaware of the multimedia website Takepart.com, which describes itself this way:

TakePart is a digital media company with a singular mission: To make participating in positive change easy, rewarding, and part of everyday life. The articles, videos and actions we create build awareness of issues that shape our lives and culture, and provide ways to make a difference.

TakePart is a website, for one, and also a Social Action Network that includes individuals, NGOs, online communities and brands who share a common interest in making the world a better place. We are a division of Participant Media, which has produced culture-shifting films such as An Inconvenient Truth, The Cove, and Waiting for Superman.

To date, Participant has developed programs and active, working relationships with more than 300 non-profits. Collectively, we have the potential to reach more than 75 million people.

So they're your typical bunch of affluent and well-connected self-proclaimed progressives who want to somehow put a bunch of different issues into that one box labeled "progressive."

What called my attention to the site was something that appeared in my news feed titled "5 Things You Need to Know: Doctor Assisted Suicide." 

The article - by Allan MacDonell - should have carried the more accurate title of "5 Things I Think I Know About Doctor Assisted Suicide"

The picture below - obviously of Not Dead Yet protesters at the Supreme Court - is posted along with MacDonell's article.  You'd think, then, he'd know something about people with  disabilities and our concerns about assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The article gives no evidence of Mr. MacDonell having read anything at all by NDY - on our old website, any of our published articles, or material on this blog.


Mr. MacDonell's "need to know" items are mostly misinformation and "straw man" version of anti assisted suicide/euthanasia arguments.

Here's his opening:

Americans disagree on many things, and doctor-assisted suicide is the thing they disagree on the hardest. Oddly, veterinarians seem to be immune from the assisted-death controversy, despite the fact that almost every former kid in the country has at one time submitted a beloved pet to be “put to sleep.” An anti-euthanasia activist will be hard-pressed to find a person, other than a potential serial killer, who will assert that Scruffy or Spot or Balthazar would have been better served to wheeze out a few extra last days while being starved to death in a joy-blocking haze of pain, medication and intrusive surgical procedures.

Before even going into his "need to know" list, MacDonell perpetuates the myth that all pets are "put down" by loving owners because the animals are terminally ill and in pain.  As discussed on this blog and in an article I coauthored with Dick Sobsey, a minority of pets are euthanized because they are terminally ill and in pain.  One of the most recent factors in an increased rate of pet euthanasia is the economic downturn - people can't afford their pets and have them euthanized - or abandon them to a shelter that does it.

So what about those "need to know" items?

I'll leave those who read this blog to read the original article for the content of the first three items, which discuss the difference between euthansia and assisted suicide, death through withdrawal of feeding tube, and that assisted suicide is mostly what the author calls a "criminal mercy" in the US.

Number four is the one that gets to the real source of some of the most important distortions and omissions:

4) Meet four arguments that oppose assisted suicide. A) Improvements in hospice and palliative care have made physician-assisted suicide unnecessary. B) Patients have no right to cheapen the value of human life by seeking help in ending their own. C) Physician-assisted suicide is the first mossy flagstone on a slippery slope to officially sanctioned human depravity, sliding into the pit of involuntary euthanasia for persons with mental illnesses, physical handicaps or any characteristics deemed unsavory. D) Any physician who assists in a suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm.”

In A) the claim is partially true.  What's left out is that pro-assisted suicide advocates are saying that the availability of palliative care is irrelevant to a person's desire to get help to commit suicide.  Relatively few people who die under the Oregon law cite pain as a reason for wanting to commit suicide - the reasons of not wanting to be a burden or fear of losing autonomy are much more common.  As for B) - Frankly I have never heard the argument put quite that way by anyone - especially in the disability community.

As for item C) - with the snarky wording about the "first mossy flagstone on a slippery slope," we've already slid - and continue to do so thanks to the advocacy of the pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide movement. Has MacDonell never heard of that (cough) sweet little old lady selling "suicide kits" to anyone who wants them and pays her 60 dollars?  Never heard of the Final Exit Network?  The group of "suicide vigilantes" who help just about anyone commit suicide because they don't believe any law - including Oregon's - gives people enough freedom to get "help" in committing suicide.

Then there is number 5 on the list:

5) Assisted suicide has spawned its own tourist industry. Switzerland, a prosperous European country of snowy Alps, pristine lakes and excellent watches and chocolate, has many attractions to tempt the leisured and sophisticated traveler. However, if you’re planning a trip to the Swiss skiing slopes, you might want to wait until you feel a lot more wretched and pessimistic about the coming days. Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1941. One local company, Dignitas, has helped 1,138 people die over the past 13 years—with clients hailing from Germany, Great Britain and France. Zurich’s voters recently shot down a proposed ban on suicide tourism with a 78 percent majority, disagreeing hardly at all.

This is all true.  But the enormous support the public shows for Dignitas argues against the author's implied premise that "slippery slopes" are nothing to worry about.  You see, Mr. MacDonell forgot to mention that Dignitas will facilitate the suicide of anyone - young, old, healthy, ill, disabled, able-bodied - it doesn't matter to Dignitas.  They'll help you as long as you can pay their pretty exorbitant fees.

I'm used to people who think they are somehow progressive disagreeing with disability activists and advocates on these issues.  What I have never gotten used to is the willingness of these same folks to render us invisible or distort our true positions in this important public policy debate.

We're not stupid, paranoid, or delusional.  We've just been paying attention. --Stephen Drake

Note - Couple of minor edits made today.  One spelling error and a two-word omission in a sentence pointed out to me by Allan MacDonell.