Dr. Kevorkian

[DriveAlive]

In class, we are studying euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, so we watched a documentary on Dr. Kevorkian. I also watched the docudrama "You Don't Know Jack" which was clearly biased toward Kevorkian. What does everyone else think about him? Is he a pioneer for human rights, a death fetishist, or serial killer?

[Judean Zealot]

"Serial killer" is a little harsh. I believe that euthanasia is wrong, just as it is (often) wrong to commit suicide, but to the best of my knowledge he was acting in good conscience and conviction.

[SethfromMI]

"Serial killer" is a little harsh. I believe that euthanasia is wrong, just as it is (often) wrong to commit suicide, but to the best of my knowledge he was acting in good conscience and conviction.

I agree it is wrong as well, but it is a complex issue to be sure. I would not want to suffer from an excruciating disease just so I can wait to die. I have seen some people who went from being healthy to withering away as they died from some disease which could not be cured. I can understand why someone would want to be put out of their misery. I can understand the thinking if they are going to die anyways why not make the end quicker.

I, like you, think Dr. Kevorkian was acting in what he thought was good conscience and conviction. Maybe he was wrong to do what he did, but he was trying to help bring an end to people's suffering when there was no hope. He actually did have a lot of qualifications for the person to be qualified to be put to sleep, he would not just do it for simply anyone who asked. If someone had hope, he (to my knowledge based on what I know) would not do it.

So while I think he was wrong, I will not demonize him. I see what he was trying to do and understand it. I also completely understand why one would not have any problems with what he did. Death is a touchy subject for most people. So yea, I may not agree with what he did, but I understand he was trying to do what he thought was humane.

[phuckphace]

what's "wrong" in these kinds of situations is the fact that a lot of people seem readily willing to extend the suffering of their """"""""loved ones"""""""" for their own emotional benefit. of course losing someone you care about is very unpleasant, but I would think the unpleasantness of losing a loved one to a peaceful death vs. watching a loved one writhe in pain in hospice care for a few years before a slow and agonizing death would be relatively preferable for both parties involved.

"Mengele is totally back guys!" said all the same pseudocons who also totally screwed up the abortion issue with their neoliberal baloney and results-free abortion clinic picketing. the "life" party needs to get good at actually doing shit to help it before it can say anything, imo

I'm having trouble fitting this through my noggin - we routinely kill others without their consent, but not people who give their consent? I'm sure my argument has some Latin fallacy name that will be swiftly corrected by deb8gud crew.

tl;dr Dr Kevorkian did nothing wrong.

[Judean Zealot]

what's "wrong" in these kinds of situations is the fact that a lot of people seem readily willing to extend the suffering of their """"""""loved ones"""""""" for their own emotional benefit. of course losing someone you care about is very unpleasant, but I would think the unpleasantness of losing a loved one to a peaceful death vs. watching a loved one writhe in pain in hospice care for a few years before a slow and agonizing death would be relatively preferable for both parties involved.

"Mengele is totally back guys!" said all the same pseudocons who also totally screwed up the abortion issue with their neoliberal baloney and results-free abortion clinic picketing. the "life" party needs to get good at actually doing shit to help it before it can say anything, imo

I'm having trouble fitting this through my noggin - we routinely kill others without their consent, but not people who give their consent? I'm sure my argument has some Latin fallacy name that will be swiftly corrected by deb8gud crew.

tl;dr Dr Kevorkian did nothing wrong.


The religious objection to euthanasia is the same as that of suicide- one does not have the right to escape from a duty issued by Providence (life).

[DriveAlive]

What casts doubt on his intentions is the fact that several of the people he assisted did not have terminal illness and some had no physical illness at all. Also, he did several suicides within 24 hours of meeting the patient. This shows that he was not all too concerned with checking medical records, verifying illnesses, or evaluating mental health.

[Vlerchan]

I can't comment on Kevorkian since all I know of him is what his wikipedia page documents.

I'm fine with euthanasia so long as a mental health evaluations precedes it nonetheless.

[Stronk Serb]

If someone suffers from an illnes and has no chance to survive, it's fine. If he doesn't want to prolong his suffering, he should be allowed to be euthanised. If someone is on a depression trip or something and there is no illnes that can kill the patient, it should not be allowed.

[phuckphace]

The religious objection to euthanasia is the same as that of suicide- one does not have the right to escape from a duty issued by Providence (life).

I disagree with this, but at the same time I don't have a counterargument other than a tip o' the old fedora, so stalemate I guess :P

[Judean Zealot]

I disagree with this, but at the same time I don't have a counterargument other than a tip o' the old fedora, so stalemate I guess :P

I'm just trying to point out that it's more than just a psychotic position held by fools, as your original post implied.

[phuckphace]

I'm just trying to point out that it's more than just a psychotic position held by fools, as your original post implied.

I don't think it's psychotic, but the way it often manifests as in the Terri Schiavo case appears selfish.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't think it's psychotic, but the way it often manifests as in the Terri Schiavo case appears selfish.

Of course, we ought to remember that even if something is done for selfish reasons, that in no way precludes it from being justified, or even necessary, by virtue of some other unexpressed idea.

[ImCoolBeans]

I don't think that Dr. Kevorkian did anything wrong. Most of his patients had ALS, which ends with you suffocating and choking on your own saliva because your muscles stop working, and had a horrible death coming their way. These weren't people who got sick and said "fuck it." These were people who were at the brutal end of terminal illnesses, had come to recognize the fact that they were going to die, and had already said their goodbyes. I agree that it is often wrong to commit suicide, but under an extreme medical circumstance I don't believe that it is wrong to go out right before the end. Humans generally want to prolong life, but sometimes that can be more excruciating or horrible than death.

[lacey02]

I think it is wrong. really sensitive issue though... At least there may be some people who choose to let him end their lives which is better than him just doing it because you are sick or old...

[Babs]

If I was guaranteed a horrible death, hell yeah I'd want to be mercy killed. You don't even have to take me to a real doctor. Just take me to the vet and put me down clean.

I don't think he did anything wrong.

[Jinglebottom]

I would only use euthanasia as a last resort to a patient in incurable, excruciating pain, that cannot be controlled even with the strongest pain medication. But how often does that happen?

[DriveAlive]

My point was not to discuss euthanasia/PAS, but rather Kevorkian himself because he is (or was) the face of the movement. In my opinion, it is more of a case of right message, wrong messenger. If you look at the patients Kevorkian helped, many did not have terminal illnesses and some did not have diagnosable illnesses at all. He did not check medical records or consult other doctors about the mental health of many patients. To me, this shows that he really did not care as long as he was able to "assist" them.

[Arkansasguy]

In class, we are studying euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, so we watched a documentary on Dr. Kevorkian. I also watched the docudrama "You Don't Know Jack" which was clearly biased toward Kevorkian. What does everyone else think about him? Is he a pioneer for human rights, a death fetishist, or serial killer?

He was a serial killer, by definition. He should have been put to death.

[Judean Zealot]

He was a serial killer, by definition. He should have been put to death.

"By definition" an executioner is a serial killer as well. That doesn't mean he should be put to death.

[SethfromMI]

My point was not to discuss euthanasia/PAS, but rather Kevorkian himself because he is (or was) the face of the movement. In my opinion, it is more of a case of right message, wrong messenger. If you look at the patients Kevorkian helped, many did not have terminal illnesses and some did not have diagnosable illnesses at all. He did not check medical records or consult other doctors about the mental health of many patients. To me, this shows that he really did not care as long as he was able to "assist" them.

Now that is something I did not realize, although I guess I should of. I thought he did check the records as I thought I saw a clip of him saying he would not assist a patient in death who had a chance. Obviously, even if he did say it that does not mean he couldn't lie about it. the fact he did not check the records really make what he did even worse. it is one thing to assist someone who literally has no chance (not that I support euthanasia, though more understandable) of being cured, it is another to simply end the lives of those who simply do not want to live anymore (be suffering from depression or whatever else)

[Judean Zealot]

My point was not to discuss euthanasia/PAS, but rather Kevorkian himself because he is (or was) the face of the movement. In my opinion, it is more of a case of right message, wrong messenger. If you look at the patients Kevorkian helped, many did not have terminal illnesses and some did not have diagnosable illnesses at all. He did not check medical records or consult other doctors about the mental health of many patients. To me, this shows that he really did not care as long as he was able to "assist" them.

Is this true? I don't know enough about the man himself. Do you have any reliable sources?

[sqishy]

He was a serial killer, by definition. He should have been put to death.

If we're going to take (in themselves large jumps of) definitions for all of the law, then huge numbers of people would be dead, and in jail. Personally I'm not in favour of one-liner all-out absolute sentences with trials that last 30 seconds.

He may have met a definition partially by physical causality, though that really begs the question as 'killer' implies intention too. His intention, and the intention of those he was working with, need to be taken into account. That is what is in discussion here. We're not debating the physics.

What defines a serial killer for you, specifically?

[phuckphace]

I figured I should clarify that I don't believe suicide is "right", however it seems as though in cases of extreme physical suffering it's the lesser of two evils.

suicide prevention is important, and this is going into my comprehensive public health plan for when I assume power. as in all areas, I believe the best way to tackle symptoms, like suicide, is by targeting the disease. someone who commits suicide for reasons other than euthanasia could have probably been helped if we didn't live in a clown world that calls the evil good and the good evil, and encourages people to live in ways that reinforce their misery and hopelessness.

I've read about cases of young boys committing suicide due to being bullied for liking My Little Pony. the obsessive MLP fandom itself is a form of escapism - the real world is hateful so why not take refuge in a cartoon fantasy world instead? of course, if this were the 1950s these same boys would have a real community to belong to and the material comfort and safety that comes with it. I want to build a country where people don't have to hide from the world and commit suicide to escape from it.

Figure 1. Erstwhile bronies living in the Phuckenreich.

http://i.imgur.com/BML356v.jpg

[ImCoolBeans]

Is this true? I don't know enough about the man himself. Do you have any reliable sources?

I don't believe it to be true. It's hard to discern what is fact or propaganda against Dr. Kevorkian because most of his patients were not actually identified and most of those who were, were only identified as Kevorkian patients long after the fact. I did some searching online to see if there was anything to support DriveAlive's claim and I came across one article that didn't seem to take a strong stance on either side, and recognized the fact that most of his patients weren't actually identified, so I don't know how reliable it actually is.

From both documentaries I watched, in a class, it seemed evident that most (if not all, but I can't confirm that myself) of his patients were in fact terminally ill or had illnesses/diseases that caused them a great deal of pain, and caused great interference with living their lives.

[DriveAlive]

I watched two different documentaries in class, and one was a 60 Minutes doc in which they discussed the patients that were confirmed Kevorkian patients but did not have any terminal illnesses. Also, just taking a look at the Wikipedia page on him will support my other statements about him.
Right message. Wrong messenger.

[SethfromMI]

I don't believe it to be true. It's hard to discern what is fact or propaganda against Dr. Kevorkian because most of his patients were not actually identified and most of those who were, were only identified as Kevorkian patients long after the fact. I did some searching online to see if there was anything to support DriveAlive's claim and I came across one article that didn't seem to take a strong stance on either side, and recognized the fact that most of his patients weren't actually identified, so I don't know how reliable it actually is.

From both documentaries I watched, in a class, it seemed evident that most (if not all, but I can't confirm that myself) of his patients were in fact terminally ill or had illnesses/diseases that caused them a great deal of pain, and caused great interference with living their lives.

now this is what I originally saw in a documentary as well (I forget the name as it was more of a clip). not to justify what he did, but it would make it at least more understandable on why he did it

[Judean Zealot]

I watched two different documentaries in class, and one was a 60 Minutes doc in which they discussed the patients that were confirmed Kevorkian patients but did not have any terminal illnesses. Also, just taking a look at the Wikipedia page on him will support my other statements about him.
Right message. Wrong messenger.

I'm sorry, but an (uncited) sensationalist newspaper report mentioned on Wikipedia is hardly sufficient proof of the matter. Wikipedia is great for names, dates, and uncontested events or facts (ie the 30 years war or hydroelectricity), but us pretty much useless for anything controversial, considering it's user generated nature.

[Arkansasguy]

"By definition" an executioner is a serial killer as well. That doesn't mean he should be put to death.

"A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone".

A lawful execution is not murder. So the analogy does not hold.

If we're going to take (in themselves large jumps of) definitions for all of the law, then huge numbers of people would be dead, and in jail. Personally I'm not in favour of one-liner all-out absolute sentences with trials that last 30 seconds.

He may have met a definition partially by physical causality, though that really begs the question as 'killer' implies intention too. His intention, and the intention of those he was working with, need to be taken into account. That is what is in discussion here. We're not debating the physics.

What defines a serial killer for you, specifically?

It's not a jump of a definition. He killed hundreds of people on purpose and with premeditation. That's just what a serial killer is.

And the intention of injecting a person with lethal doses of drugs (or telling them to inject themselves with lethal doses of drugs) is to kill them. Intention isn't severable from the objective nature of the acts.

"A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone".

[sqishy]

It's not a jump of a definition. He killed hundreds of people on purpose and with premeditation. That's just what a serial killer is.

Your view of a serial killer is completely absent with regards to the state of mind of these people, as in their consent etc.
If we do hold your view on serial killers, alright. However, that view is insufficient for defining the 'legal guilt' of serial killers, because we need to know about the people being killed. There is a big difference in someone being killed willingly, and someone being killed unwillingly.


And the intention of injecting a person with lethal doses of drugs (or telling them to inject themselves with lethal doses of drugs) is to kill them. Intention isn't severable from the objective nature of the acts.

Outside the brackets, for sure. Inside the brackets, I could come up with scenarios which oppose the view that simply telling someone to kill themselves means that they are fully guilty of murder.

For example, I may have a gun. Someone may tell me to kill myself with the gun. If I do it (holding all known about the scenario), that does not give suffiicient justification for that someone being guilty of murder. Also, if I do not pull the trigger, does that mean that that someone should be guilty of attempted murder?

It's not as simple as one person telling another to do something, and that other being so suggestive that the first person's intentions simply 'work through' the second's, like some tool. It is better to hold an assumption that 'lines of causality' by every person 'break' when in contact with another, than an alternative where intentions simply flow through others with no interference.


"A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone".

Alright, though I think the latter part is bringing in secondary liabilities, where the first it talking about only one person. Only something I think could be worded differently; I think the first part is fine by itself.

From the first part, murder is what we're really looking at here, with regards your view on it.

[Vlerchan]

He may have met a definition partially by physical causality, though that really begs the question as 'killer' implies intention too. His intention, and the intention of those he was working with, need to be taken into account. That is what is in discussion here. We're not debating the physics.
You're incorrectly conflating motive and mens rea (mindset). In order to be satisfied that a person has committed a crime courts will look for an actus reus (criminal action) and the mens rea. The mens rea for assisted suicide is intent. It is irrelevant if the motivations were benevolent insofar as the mens rea was satisfied. In determining whether a crime occurred - the point of a trial - the courts don't look to motives [outside specific and well-documented exceptions: defences of necessitation for ex. and that doesn't clear murder].

The motive is invoked as a qualification of evidence and a means of tying evidence to the defendant or other parties.

There is a big difference in someone being killed willingly, and someone being killed unwillingly.
Not under current statute in the jurisdiction being discussed - nor any other common law jurisdiction as far as I'm aware.

Consent also can't be invoked for assault causing serious harm (s.4 assault) for reasons that were best outlined in R v. Brown (1994).

---

He killed hundreds of people on purpose and with premeditation.
No he didn't. It was ruled in multiple cases* that Kevorkian had engaged in assisted suicide. This is a separate offence to murder insofar as the actus reus differs.

He was convicted of just a single murder**. Thus he can't be class a serial killer within the legal jurisdiction you're adapting your definitions from (the U.S.).

---

*Please refer to People v. Kevorkian 447 Mich. 436 (1994) for the leading case.

**Please refer to People v. Kevorkian 248 Mich. App. 373 (2001).

[sqishy]

You're incorrectly conflating motive and mens rea (mindset). In order to be satisfied that a person has committed a crime courts will look for an actus reus (criminal action) and the mens rea. The mens rea for assisted suicide is intent. It is irrelevant if the motivations were benevolent insofar as the mens rea was satisfied. In determining whether a crime occurred - the point of a trial - the courts don't look to motives [outside specific and well-documented exceptions: defences of necessitation for ex. and that doesn't clear murder].

The motive is invoked as a qualification of evidence and a means of tying evidence to the defendant or other parties.


I must have explained my view here wrong, I was saying that we need to look at things though mens rea and actus reus, not simply define things through an actus reus.


Not under current statute in the jurisdiction being discussed - nor any other common law jurisdiction as far as I'm aware.

Consent also can't be invoked for assault causing serious harm (s.4 assault) for reasons that were best outlined in R v. Brown (1994).

I am approaching this topic through personal morality and ethics etc, with regards to Arkansasguy's positions; less so through law. I'm doing this because I want to see personal reasoning, not see how aligned my views (or his) are with a legal system.

Personally, I am not in favour of the law seeing consent as irrelevant (or of similar importance) when situations involving physical harm of one on another occur. Yeah, consent is a complex thing, but I don't want to to be not involved because of that.

[Vlerchan]

I must have explained my view here wrong, I was saying that we need to look at things though mens rea and actus reus, not simply define things through an actus reus.
We are. The mens rea for assisted suicide is manifested intent that the facilitated victim will commit suicide.

Kevorkian - in inventing his death machine and in later setting up death clinics - intended that his victims would commit suicide with his facilitation.

I am approaching this topic through personal morality and ethics etc, with regards to Arkansasguy's positions; less so through law.
OK: apologies then, that wasn't clear from the conversation, where I'm quite certain that Arkansasguy is arguing purely on a legal basis.

[sqishy]

We are. The mens rea for assisted suicide is manifested intent that the facilitated victim will commit suicide.

Kevorkian - in inventing his death machine and in later setting up death clinics - intended that his victims would commit suicide with his facilitation.

I know we are, but I was getting an impression from Arkansasguy's opinion that Kevorkian's liability is justified by heavily actus reus definitions.

"He was a serial killer, by definition. He should have been put to death.
...
"A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone"."

(At this point I see inconsistencies, but it is irrelevant regarding my impressions at first.)


OK: apologies then, that wasn't clear from the conversation, where I'm quite certain that Arkansasguy is arguing purely on a legal basis.

Perhaps, but I feel he has personal backing into it as well, so I want to see why.

[Vlerchan]

I know we are, but I was getting an impression from Arkansasguy's opinion that Kevorkian's liability is justified by heavily actus reus definitions [...]

[...] "A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone"."
That's the actual definition of a serial killer in the U.S. and it involves reference to the mens rea insofar as it invokes the statute definition of murder (intending to kill or cause serious bodily harm).

Perhaps, but I feel he has personal backing into it as well, so I want to see why.
Oh without a doubt.

That he desires capital punishment - which Michigan abolished in the mid-1800s - speaks of an extra-legal approach to the issue here.

[sqishy]

That's the actual definition of a serial killer in the U.S. and it involves reference to the mens rea insofar as it invokes the statute definition of murder (intending to kill or cause serious bodily harm).


I see, thanks for clarifying for me.



Oh without a doubt.

That he desires capital punishment - which Michigan abolished in the mid-1800s - speaks of an extra-legal approach to the issue here.

Yes, indeed.

[Arkansasguy]

Your view of a serial killer is completely absent with regards to the state of mind of these people, as in their consent etc.
If we do hold your view on serial killers, alright. However, that view is insufficient for defining the 'legal guilt' of serial killers, because we need to know about the people being killed. There is a big difference in someone being killed willingly, and someone being killed unwillingly.



Outside the brackets, for sure. Inside the brackets, I could come up with scenarios which oppose the view that simply telling someone to kill themselves means that they are fully guilty of murder.

For example, I may have a gun. Someone may tell me to kill myself with the gun. If I do it (holding all known about the scenario), that does not give suffiicient justification for that someone being guilty of murder. Also, if I do not pull the trigger, does that mean that that someone should be guilty of attempted murder?

It's not as simple as one person telling another to do something, and that other being so suggestive that the first person's intentions simply 'work through' the second's, like some tool. It is better to hold an assumption that 'lines of causality' by every person 'break' when in contact with another, than an alternative where intentions simply flow through others with no interference.



Alright, though I think the latter part is bringing in secondary liabilities, where the first it talking about only one person. Only something I think could be worded differently; I think the first part is fine by itself.

From the first part, murder is what we're really looking at here, with regards your view on it.

It's correct that I don't consider the victims' state of mind, as it is completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is that he intended to kill his victims.

And in the case you describe, the crime is manslaughter.

No he didn't. It was ruled in multiple cases* that Kevorkian had engaged in assisted suicide. This is a separate offence to murder insofar as the act us reus differs.

He was convicted of just a single murder**. Thus he can't be class a serial killer within the legal jurisdiction you're adapting your definitions from (the U.S.).

---

*Please refer to People v. Kevorkian 447 Mich. 436 (1994) for the leading case.

**Please refer to People v. Kevorkian 248 Mich. App. 373 (2001).

I'm aware of that. If you believe that the one time he was caught, was the only time that he himself pulled the trigger (pressed the button, whatever), then I'd like to sell you a golden egg.

[Vlerchan]

I'm aware of that. If you believe that the one time he was caught, was the only time that he himself pulled the trigger (pressed the button, whatever), then I'd like to sell you a golden egg.
Ok. Regardless of how you word your speculation it's still speculation.

---

[He also invented a machine to avoid being culpable of murder. The time he got charged with murder was when he attempted to expand his campaign to euthanasia.

So how much?]

[phuckphace]

I'm sorry, but an (uncited) sensationalist newspaper report mentioned on Wikipedia is hardly sufficient proof of the matter. Wikipedia is great for names, dates, and uncontested events or facts (ie the 30 years war or hydroelectricity), but is pretty much useless for anything controversial, considering it's user generated nature.

a typical Wiki editor's day: *revert* *refresh* *revert* *refresh* *revert* *refresh*

I thought about becoming a smalltime contributor once but after a quick glance at an ongoing edit war between three camps of autists, I changed my mind [CITATION NEEDED]

[Judean Zealot]

"A person who commits two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually but not always by one offender acting alone".

A lawful execution is not murder. So the analogy does not hold.


The question here involves two elements: one, whether what Kevorkian did was legally murder, and two, whether that ought to be so. I'm not going to argue that the law permits (or permitted, idk) euthanasia, but that has very little implication to the moral question of whether or not euthanasia ought to be illegal in the first place. Example: the bill of rights is law. Yet you would say that, while their current legal status is clearly binding, it is morally proper to change that law. In the case of Kevorkian, you are conflating the actual morality of the action with the codified law.

Either that or you're being hypocritical and selective about where you appeal to the codified law and where you don't. Even in this case, as Vlerchan pointed out, you appeal to the law to define him a murderer, yet you reject the state laws against capital punishment. I smell a double standard here.

[Arkansasguy]

The question here involves two elements: one, whether what Kevorkian did was legally murder, and two, whether that ought to be so. I'm not going to argue that the law permits (or permitted, idk) euthanasia, but that has very little implication to the moral question of whether or not euthanasia ought to be illegal in the first place. Example: the bill of rights is law. Yet you would say that, while their current legal status is clearly binding, it is morally proper to change that law. In the case of Kevorkian, you are conflating the actual morality of the action with the codified law.

Either that or you're being hypocritical and selective about where you appeal to the codified law and where you don't. Even in this case, as Vlerchan pointed out, you appeal to the law to define him a murderer, yet you reject the state laws against capital punishment. I smell a double standard here.

Well yes. I approve of the law against murder, and it's lack of an exception for consent. But I don't approve of the state's abolition of the death penalty.

You agree that what he did was murder, correct?

[sqishy]

It's correct that I don't consider the victims' state of mind, as it is completely irrelevant. All that is relevant is that he intended to kill his victims.


Why is it completely irrelevant?
You calling the people being killed as 'victims' already presupposes that these people were being killed without consent. One is not a victim of something if one consents to it.


And in the case you describe, the crime is manslaughter.


From a purely legal standpoint, yes. It is not a series of murders.The state of mind of (as you put it) the victims is irrelevant for murder legally (as far as I know), but it is totally relevant for considering murder.

To clarify, I want to see your personal reasoning in this. I am not examining laws already in place.

[Judean Zealot]

Arkansasguy

What Paraxiom said. I am not arguing that it fell under the legal definition of murder - it clearly did. What I'm saying is that the law doesn't define morality, morality is transcendent. So appealing to the law doesn't inform me whatsoever of the morality or lack thereof of euthanasia.

[phuckphace]

Arkansasguy

What Paraxiom said. I am not arguing that it fell under the legal definition of murder - it clearly did. What I'm saying is that the law doesn't define morality, morality is transcendent. So appealing to the law doesn't inform me whatsoever of the morality or lack thereof of euthanasia.

this. I had this exact conversation with my extremely religious mother when she caught me toking last week (around mom, hide the bong!)

at best, man's law is informed by transcendental morality, but it's still highly relative. I asked her, "if they legalized murder tomorrow would you still object to murder?" "b-but it's illegal!" and abortion and extramarital sex are not, what's your point?

she saw my point though.

[SethfromMI]

I think what is so hard about this issue is the fact all of us see the value of human life, yet there is a struggle between understanding Kevorkian's motives. Was he trying to do what he believed the right thing? did the people he help euthanize really were going to die of a terminally ill disease or was Kevorkian more careless and just killed anyone who wanted to go? Obviously what he did was against the legal law, if those who sought him and he "helped" truly were going to die, did he do a merciful thing by ending their suffering? do I think what he did was wrong? yes I said it before and i will say it again. but, I will also say again, assuming those he helped were indeed terminally ill (a fact which is not agreed on by everyone so I am going on the assumption it is true) I can understand why he did what he did and can even understand how he thought he was doing the right thing. I might not agree with it, but I can understand it and (again going purely based off the assumption) while I think he was still in the wrong, it, in my own view, takes away a perspective he is a monster. if I was terminally ill, to be honest, I would want to die when the pain just became too miserable. I might not want to die right away, but I would not want to drag it out either. obviously I would wait for whatever happen to happen, but I do understand people who are terminally ill said I don't want to suffer anymore. I watched some close ones suffer before they died.

which is why I can understand people from both view points and even sympathize with both viewpoints

[Arkansasguy]

Why is it completely irrelevant?
You calling the people being killed as 'victims' already presupposes that these people were being killed without consent. One is not a victim of something if one consents to it.


No. There are plenty of crimes that are committed with the consent of the victims. Statutory rape being an obvious one. Introducing a controlled substance into the body of another person is also a crime that can be committed regardless of the victim's consent. So it is with murder.

From a purely legal standpoint, yes. It is not a series of murders.The state of mind of (as you put it) the victims is irrelevant for murder legally (as far as I know), but it is totally relevant for considering murder.

To clarify, I want to see your personal reasoning in this. I am not examining laws already in place.

My reasoning is that suicide and (with a few exceptions not relevant here) homicide are immoral. Specifically, they're a type of immorality which should be illegal, because of their grave effects on the social order. None of this is affected by their consent.

Arkansasguy

What Paraxiom said. I am not arguing that it fell under the legal definition of murder - it clearly did. What I'm saying is that the law doesn't define morality, morality is transcendent. So appealing to the law doesn't inform me whatsoever of the morality or lack thereof of euthanasia.

Well first of all, even if there was nothing wrong with euthanasia in itself, it's illegality certainly makes it immoral, no?

Second of all, I'd like to be clear, are you seriously arguing that euthanasia is not murder, or are you playing the devil's advocate.

this. I had this exact conversation with my extremely religious mother when she caught me toking last week (around mom, hide the bong!)

at best, man's law is informed by transcendental morality, but it's still highly relative. I asked her, "if they legalized murder tomorrow would you still object to murder?" "b-but it's illegal!" and abortion and extramarital sex are not, what's your point?

she saw my point though.

Now that's just a blatant logical error. If it's admitted, for the sake of argument, that there's nothing wrong with drug use in itself, that still doesn't mean it's ok to break the law in that regard.

[Judean Zealot]

Well first of all, even if there was nothing wrong with euthanasia in itself, it's illegality certainly makes it immoral, no?

Generally speaking, yes, although of course to a far lesser degree than murder. Speeding and euthanasia would be in the same category (assuming, of course, that euthanasia is objectively not immoral). However, I'm not discussing this angle. I'm discussing whether it ought to have been illegal in the first place.

Second of all, I'd like to be clear, are you seriously arguing that euthanasia is not murder, or are you playing the devil's advocate.

I believe euthanasia is, like suicide, usually wrong. However, it's something I'm a lot more ambiguous about than murder proper. So I guess you could say a mixture of both.

[sqishy]

No. There are plenty of crimes that are committed with the consent of the victims. Statutory rape being an obvious one. Introducing a controlled substance into the body of another person is also a crime that can be committed regardless of the victim's consent. So it is with murder.

Statutory rape is a crime which is based off the premise that people under a certain age are not within full understanding capabilities of certain acts that they do. In other words, they are too naive, or not cautious (and so on), when it comes to sexual acts with someone over a certain accepted age. The age of consent is that legal threshold which intends to divide the well-understanding from the not-so-well-understanding.

I assume that all other crimes with consent of the 'victims' work similarly. They are consenting with what understanding capabilities they have, but it is seen to be insufficient and not 'complete', which could lead to future harm of themselves.

I'm talking about situations where someone knows well (sufficiently) what is going on. If someone does not want to live because of lack of enjoyment or meaning out of their lives (e.g. from terminal or chronic physical illness), then they are more likely to know fully what they're doing if they want to end their life.
For people who are depressed/etc, it works similarly to with statutory rape. They are more likely to not be in a proper state of understanding with regards to ending their life. The idea is that the depression can be treated and the person will change their mind about ending their life / not wanting to live it.

As with all of this so far, I do not want to draw arbitrary lines of definitions of sufficient/insufficient understanding needed for consent, and treat them as authoritative. There are many variables going on here.



My reasoning is that suicide and (with a few exceptions not relevant here) homicide are immoral. Specifically, they're a type of immorality which should be illegal, because of their grave effects on the social order. None of this is affected by their consent.


Objective categorical morality, then.

[phuckphace]

Now that's just a blatant logical error. If it's admitted, for the sake of argument, that there's nothing wrong with drug use in itself, that still doesn't mean it's ok to break the law in that regard.

not trying to turn this into a "muh weed" argument but my point was ~the law~ is irrelevant when you have a properly turned moral compass. it doesn't define morality and cannot for several reasons, one of the main ones being its enactors are imperfect humans (some might also say hypocrites to the utmost)

also my argument here isn't "well the gov't is hypocritical therefore I don't have to follow the law" so try not to argue that line if you can

[Arkansasguy]

Generally speaking, yes, although of course to a far lesser degree than murder. Speeding and euthanasia would be in the same category (assuming, of course, that euthanasia is objectively not immoral). However, I'm not discussing this angle. I'm discussing whether it ought to have been illegal in the first place.



I believe euthanasia is, like suicide, usually wrong. However, it's something I'm a lot more ambiguous about than murder proper. So I guess you could say a mixture of both.

How do you distinguish between euthanasia and murder proper?

Statutory rape is a crime which is based off the premise that people under a certain age are not within full understanding capabilities of certain acts that they do. In other words, they are too naive, or not cautious (and so on), when it comes to sexual acts with someone over a certain accepted age. The age of consent is that legal threshold which intends to divide the well-understanding from the not-so-well-understanding.

I assume that all other crimes with consent of the 'victims' work similarly. They are consenting with what understanding capabilities they have, but it is seen to be insufficient and not 'complete', which could lead to future harm of themselves.

I'm talking about situations where someone knows well (sufficiently) what is going on. If someone does not want to live because of lack of enjoyment or meaning out of their lives (e.g. from terminal or chronic physical illness), then they are more likely to know fully what they're doing if they want to end their life.
For people who are depressed/etc, it works similarly to with statutory rape. They are more likely to not be in a proper state of understanding with regards to ending their life. The idea is that the depression can be treated and the person will change their mind about ending their life / not wanting to live it.

As with all of this so far, I do not want to draw arbitrary lines of definitions of sufficient/insufficient understanding needed for consent, and treat them as authoritative. There are many variables going on here.




Objective categorical morality, then.

Ah, the no true consent fallacy.

not trying to turn this into a "muh weed" argument but my point was ~the law~ is irrelevant when you have a properly turned moral compass. it doesn't define morality and cannot for several reasons, one of the main ones being its enactors are imperfect humans (some might also say hypocrites to the utmost)

also my argument here isn't "well the gov't is hypocritical therefore I don't have to follow the law" so try not to argue that line if you can

Well no, the law is not irrelevant. Human society requires for its orderly operation, and as such it is wrong to refuse, obedience to the law. We're not talking about laws commanding evil or anything, but in principle, an otherwise morally neutral act becomes prohibited when it is proscribed by law.

[phuckphace]

Well no, the law is not irrelevant. Human society requires for its orderly operation, and as such it is wrong to refuse, obedience to the law. We're not talking about laws commanding evil or anything, but in principle, an otherwise morally neutral act becomes prohibited when it is proscribed by law.

well that's just like your opinion, maaan

being a total prick to everyone around me isn't illegal, but nevertheless I avoid doing it because I personally believe treating others poorly without due reason is immoral. same reasoning applies for why I don't rape drunk people at parties, not because I fear going to prison for it or out of """respect for the law"""

legal systems are a framework or set of guidelines, but Ordnung isn't ultimately maintained by chicken-scratch on a piece of paper somewhere. ideally it's maintained by a society filled with people who voluntarily choose to police themselves (see: legal heroin in the Victorian era) but in the absence of that, guns pointed at your head.

[Arkansasguy]

well that's just like your opinion, maaan

being a total prick to everyone around me isn't illegal, but nevertheless I avoid doing it because I personally believe treating others poorly without due reason is immoral. same reasoning applies for why I don't rape drunk people at parties, not because I fear going to prison for it or out of """respect for the law"""

legal systems are a framework or set of guidelines, but Ordnung isn't ultimately maintained by chicken-scratch on a piece of paper somewhere. ideally it's maintained by a society filled with people who voluntarily choose to police themselves (see: legal heroin in the Victorian era) but in the absence of that, guns pointed at your head.

That illegal acts are immoral does not imply the inverse.

So just to be clear, you don't believe that it's wrong to flout the law? You think that the only laws that should exist are ones against conduct that's already immoral?

[Judean Zealot]

How do you distinguish between euthanasia and murder proper?

Well, one might say that the person administering the euthanasia is comitting an act of mercy by shortening the agony of a dying person, and is thus doing his duty towards his fellow man.

[phuckphace]

That illegal acts are immoral does not imply the inverse.

I know. that's why I go by my moral convictions, not by what's legal or illegal. I'm pretty sure that's more or less the case for you as well, especially given that you're a devout Catholic (although I don't believe you have to be religious to hold moral convictions, but that's another debate).

adultery is morally wrong despite being legal. abortion is morally wrong (in most cases) despite being legal, etc. etc. etc.

So just to be clear, you don't believe that it's wrong to flout the law? You think that the only laws that should exist are ones against conduct that's already immoral?

kinda sorta. the immorality of acts like murder is intrinsic. I support laws that seek to minimize risk, but that's more from practicality than moralism. for example: driving recklessly (say, over the speed limit) is illegal because it endangers yourself and others. if someone is doing 80 in a 40 zone, yes, they are flouting the law, but the moral concern there (to me) is the endangerment to others.

insofar as laws are concerned, they're mainly there to define what punishment you'll receive if you break them.

[sqishy]

Ah, the no true consent fallacy.


Please elaborate on this fallacy you speak of.