0699 - Kevorkian

You have seen, and our Staff Ethicist has seen, far too many reports of inhumanity, cruelty, and unethical behavior of all sorts. Yet, the recent re-appearance of Dr. Kevorkian from jail raises old and painful ethical questions. The Ethicist believes the first test of any restriction on someone else's behavior ought to be whether the behavior hurts the restricter. So, when we read this week that some religious crazies in Gaza threaten to cut the throats of women TV newscasters if they persist in not covering their hair (and perhaps faces), the judgment is the crazies are crazy and evil, despite their claims they are serving a higher will. The same judgment is passed on suicide bombers, who rejoice in killing the innocent. The aging Dr. Kevorkian as he appeared on TV raises the question whether his imprisonment was ethical (we'll assme it was in accord with local law).

The Kevorkian crime, you may remember, was to assist those dying and in extreme pain in making a painless and smooth final exit. He is a doctor, and always claimed to be sure that the proposed suicides were not just depressed. Those who called for prosecution never claimed that he was doing anything the patients did not want, and want desperately, or that he ever harmed anyone who did not come to him for help. But, the usual simplistic attack on Dr. K was that he was violating the commandment against killing. In other words, his was a religious infraction. In the U.S., restrictions on all sorts of things have religious, not ethical, roots. The big fight is over abortion, even with a morning-after pill for a victim of rape. In contrast, it is not often considered a religious infraction to, for example, sell cigarettes, although they certainly kill users, and the sellers well know they do.

Speeding drivers who threaten to kill others are not usually classified as killers (though they may be), nor are they generally assailed from pulpits. And what about drunk drivers? We would talk about Paris Hilton if we had any idea who (or why) she is. There are surely ethical infractions here, though we don't see a lot of fatwahs issued by any major mullahs. Torture is defended by major Washington figures, and they are not condemned, nor did those responsible for Abu Ghraib serve time. We say, simply, thou shall not kill the innocent, but that does not say thou shalt not assist the innocent in unendurable pain.

Apply the Ethicist's test: are the putative offender's actions hurting someone else? If his actions do not hurt anyone else (say he is smoking pot quietly at home), then why should he be prosecuted? Why not lock up the parent who smokes tobacco around his children? That's easier to see as a crime. The point, alas, is that when a fanatic puts on a long nightie and declares that Allah calls for blowing up a hundred innocents going to a street market, we can condemn him as a moral disaster, but it is harder to condemn those closer to home who impose their discoveries of highly questionable points of religion on others.

Consider the almost universal practice of kindly dog lovers. When their beloved canine becomes old, injured, incompetent and incontinent, they decide, out of affection and compassion, to have their pet "put down". They do not let Lassie suffer continuous pain, they do not keep her alive by painful and extreme surgery, they have the caring vet give the quiet injection, and it is over. Are these people animal killers or abusers? No, they are ethical caretakers.

So, we declare that the imprisonment of Dr. Kevorkian was morally and ethically wrong, as is any flat restriction on those suffering who want a less painful way out. He deserved not jail, but respect and praise. Beatification? That's a choice.

Next time: NewAXA [OO #700]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home