Brian Ghilliotti

Introduction of Philosophy
Middlesex Community College
Term Paper
5/7/2018

Jack Kevorkian’s Advocacy Of Euthanasia

Jack Kevorkian began his controversial medical career when he graduated from the

University Michigan with a specialty in pathology. This was interrupted in 1953 when he was

ordered to go to Korea for fifteen months, where he served as an Army medical officer. After

leaving Korea, he completed his term of service in Colorado, and returned for a residency at the

University of Michigan’s Hospital.

It was here that Kevorkian became interested in the physiological aspects of dying. He

regularly visited terminally ill patients, photographing their eyes in an attempt to pin point the

exact moment of death. Kevorkian believed that this study could help doctors determine when a

patient was in a state of shock, fainting, or actual death. This knowledge would help doctors

determine when resuscitation was useless.

Kevorkian later advocated the idea of using condemned convicts as “volunteers” for so

called “painless” medical experiments before their time of execution. These proposed

experiments would begin while the prisoners were still conscious, but would conclude with fatal

outcomes. The researcher has noted the disturbing parallels with Kevorkian’s idea to the Nazi

medical experiments on concentration camp inmates in World War Two. Then there is the issue

of the prisoner’s family. Do they have the right to refuse to see their relative in prison be used for

medical experimentation against their will, even if the prisoner in question may not have rights?
 Kevorkian soon earned the nick name “Doctor Death” for his advocacy of this idea.

Though these controversial ideas would earn a little attention in academic and medical

professional circles, their biggest impact was his ejection from the University of Michigan

Medical Center.

Kevorkian continued his medical internship at Pontiac General Hospital, where he

became fascinated with another controversial medical idea. After learning of a Russian medical

team that was transfusing blood from dead patients into living patients, he got the idea of

applying this concept toward a military capacity. He believed it was possible to transfer blood

from dead battlefield victims into battlefield victims who were still alive and save their lives. To

explore this idea, he sought assistance from medical technician Neal Nichol to simulate these

experiments.

To Kevorkian, his experiments were successful, and he believed his procedure would be

able to help save the lives of injured Soldiers. If a blood bank was exhausted, Kevorkian

beloved his technique could be used to save injured Soldiers on the battlefield, and approached

the Pentagon to see if further research funding could be obtained to develop his idea. with this

ultimate goal was applying this procedure in the field in Vietnam.

However, the Pentagon decided to deny him a federal grant to continue his research.

Again, many found his ideas too controversial. He stopped further experimentation with this idea

once he exposed himself to blood tainted with Hepatitis C. This was one definite issue with

Kevorkian’s idea; how can we tell if a dead Soldier’s blood being used for battlefield

transfusions was still healthy or not (especially in the confusion of the battlefield)?

By 1960, Kevorkian established his own clinic near Detroit, Michigan. His business start

up failed, and he later decided to travel to California where he worked two part-time pathology

jobs in Long Beach. Once again Kevorkian’s pattern of pushing controversial ideas got him in
trouble, as he soon quit these jobs after clashing with his chief pathologist. Kevaorkian claimed

that his supervisors were too afraid of his ideas.

During the 1970’s and early 1980’s Kevorkian lived the life of a drifter, surviving off of

social security income and canned food, and occasionally using his automobile as shelter.

When Kevorkian learned about the use of lethal injections for death row inmates, he expanded

this idea to include terminally ill patients who sought euthanasia. He soon began writing new

articles in medical publications, this time advocating the benefits of euthanasia.

Kevorkian invented a suicide machine called a “Thanatron” (Greek for “Instrument of

Death”). Costing only $45.00 to make, it consisted of three bottles that delivered successive

doses of fluids. The first dose was saline solution, which was then followed by liquid pain killer.

Finally, a lethal dose of potassium chloride was injected. Kevorkian even considered giving

potential euthanasia patients the option administering the death doses to themselves under his

supervision. Kevorkian’s suicide machine would put him back under public controversy

spotlights, and he had no problem’s exasperating this when he suggested the establishment of

suicide clinics, which he called “obitoriums”, where doctors could help the terminally ill end their

lives.

In 1990, Jack Kevorkian achieved notoriety when he carried out his first public assisted

suicide. He responded to a euthanasia request from Janet Adkins, a Michigan resident who was

suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s. When Adkin’s heard of Kevorkian’s suicide

machine, she reached out to him. Kevorkian agreed to assist in her suicide in a public park

outside of his Volkswagen. Kevorkian attached the IV to Adkin’s, who them self administered the

lethal doses. Adkin’s would die of heart failure in five minutes.

The news soon spread throughout national media outlets. He was both a celebrity and a

criminal, since the Michigan court system wasted no time in charging Kevorkian with murder.

However, since the State of Michigan did not have a fully developed legal code on the issue of
assisted suicide, these charges fell flat. However, the Michigan courts kept pressure on

Kevorkian, passing an injunction in 1991 banning the use of his suicide machine and

suspending his medical license. This did not stop Kevorkian, who responded to his inability to

obtain the medications needed for assisted suicide by developing another machine, called the

“Mercitron”, which delivered lethal doses of carbon monoxide gas.

Kevorkian was jailed twice in 1992 for continuing his euthanasia activities. He was bailed

out by attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who argued that people may not be found guilty of criminally

assisting suicide with medications if the initial intent was to relieve pain, even if it did increase

the chances of death, and even led to death. Kevorkian would face four prosecution trials for

this activities, where he was acquitted in three, with the fourth declared a mistrial. Later,

Kevorkian claimed tthat he was disappointed in not going to prison, since he felt it would help

stir further controversy and attention to the issue he was promoting.

The Michigan Legislature eventually passed legislation making assisted suicide a felony,

punishable up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. The legal loophole that Kevorkian’s

lawyer used to prevent his incarceration was also closed. But Kevorkian continued his assisted

suicide activities.

In 1998, Kevorkian conducted a 60 minutes interview where he featured the real time

assisted suicide of Thomas Youk in a separate tape. Thomas Youk was suffering from Lou

Gehrig’s disease and had requested his help, to which Kevorkian responded. After he featured

his tape in the 60 Minutes interview, he dared to Michigan court system to prosecute him.

Michigan prosecutors took notice, and immediately charged him with second degree

murder in March 1999. In response, Kevorkian served as his own legal defense. Despite his

efforts, Kevorkian was unsuccessful in repealing his convictions, and in April of 1998 he was

convicted to 25 years in prison with the possibility of parole. For the next three years, Kevorkian

used the situation to promote the idea of euthanasia by attempting to secure appeal hearings in
higher courts to reverse his conviction. All requests were denied, to include an appeal in the US

Supreme Court.

In 2007, Kevorkian was released from prison after serving eight years of his prison

term. Prison officials felt as if he had little time left to live on account of his hepatitis C.

Surprisingly, however, he tried to run for a seat in the US Congress for the State of Michigan in

2008, winning 2.6 percent of the vote. He finally succumbed to Hepatitis C in 2011. 1

When considering the ethics of euthanasia, we must first determine what the

proponent’s motives are. Is this person driven by strictly mental heath reasons and looking for a

legally sanctioned way that is painless to end his mental suffering instead of facing it? If this is

the case, the researcher feels that euthanasia would not be appropriate.

If the medical condition that has inspired the euthanasia request is terminal, or is

extremely painful and the pain can only be controlled by expensive and potentially debilitating

medications, the researcher feels that euthanasia is acceptable. Of course, what is painful and

debilitating? This is very subjective and there will never be a clear answer.

If I was a professional consultant for such a person, I would use a cost based argument,

where the euthanasia proponent could explain that sustaining their life would only prolong the

proponent’s physical discomfort and tie down resources for medical issue that the proponent

would rather see go to their beneficiaries. However, I feel that if the proponent used this route,

there must be unanimous agreement between with the proponent’s spouse and children before

it can be approved.

There may be situations where an immediate family member (defined as the proponent’s

spouse and children) may not want to support the proponent’s euthanasia request for selfish,

cold, legal reasons. In such cases, the family would have to initiate an appeal process of some

1Unknown author. “Jack Kevorkian Biography”. biography.com. A&E Television Networks.

Last updated: December 3, 2015. Last viewed: May 7, 2018.
https://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141
kind to overcome potential stonewalling from family members. We can quickly see how a new

court system would have to be established, staffed with professionals specializing in medical

law, and specially trained to deal with highly emotional circumstances.This “euthanasia” court

would have to have some familiarity with local probate laws as well.

A potential stonewaller could make two arguments. First, a family member who wants to

stonewall a proponent’s euthanasia request could make an argument that the family member is

incompetent. What is incompetent? Again, there is no clear answer. The researcher will argue

that a basic legal test for competency would be the proponent’s explanation of what their

medical condition is, is it treatable or only just “manageable”, and why do they not want to

pursue treatment or medical management.

This would be made before a euthanasia board, consisting of private practice doctors

*who do not work at the facility* where the proponent is being treated. It would contain at least

one mental health authority, two physicians who specialize in the conditions that the proponent

is suffering from, two other doctors, and a legal attorney with a background in medical and

probate law. Board physicians would have a chance to speak with the patient and the doctor(s)

who have treated the patient, who would give the board facts, filtering their personal opinions

about euthanasia as much possible in their discussions with the euthanasia board.

The attorney attached to the board would also do their own investigation. If the legal

attorney finds something illegal behind the stonewaller’s motives, the attorney can suggest

dismissing the stonewaller’s claims. If there are legally questionable, yet not necessarily illegal,

motives driving the stonewaller’s objections, the attorney must share these findings with the

board. Since the attorney is not a doctor, they have no voting power on the medical euthanasia

board, which makes choices based on a majority vote.

If the mental health authority on the board really does determine that the proponent is

not fully competent, and is perhaps being manipulated by the rest of the family, with the
stonewaller being the only one to “defend” the proponent, he or she has the power to stop the

proceedings during the initial investigations.

Stonewallers could try to drag the process out, in order to drive up costs and time. Some

authorities involved in these processes may not help if they try to drag this out for personal gain

on their end. Kevorkian addressed the issue of financial exploitation of institutionalized public

euthanasia by proposing the idea that those who work in euthanasia clinics would receive

public salaries, so as to reduce potential profit movies by increasing “output” of euthanasia

services.2

Any attorneys involved in this process should be told that they will be paid at the same

rates that public attorneys will be paid, and will charge at the same rates as state attorneys, so

as to eliminate potential profit motives to overcharge for their services. These attorneys could be

chosen to participate on a euthanasia board in a process similar to jury selection in a regular

court trial. As an incentive for their full cooperation, legal firms selected to participate in a

euthanasia board can receive tax breaks for their business.

If the doctors on the euthanasia board discover alternative treatments that could improve

the euthanasia proponent’s quality of life, so there is less cost and less reliance on debilitating

medications or procedures, it is the responsibility of the euthanasia board to make the

proponent aware of these options. This reconsideration process must be supported by the

mental health member of the board, and any additional mental health services that can be

offered by the patient’s hospital. Additionally, in conjunction with the hospital, the attorney can

2 Belkin, Lisa. “Doctor Tells of First Death Using His Suicide Device.” New York Times. June, 6,
1990.

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1990/06/06/250090.html?
action=click&contentCollection=Archives&module=LedeAsset&region=ArchiveBody&pgtype=arti
cle
play a role in helping the patient find cost saving options for the euthanasia proponent if

financial resource considerations are the primary motives behind the proponent’s request.

Kevorkian addressed this issue in the 1990’s when he responded to criticism that his

suicide machine may prompt impulsive behavior with some severely ill patients. Kevorkian

responded that in many cases patients who were severely ill ended up killing themselves

because they though they would reach a point where they would no longer be able to

physically do it.

In those cases, Kevorkian suggested that medical ongoing research could have

provided these patients an opportunity to improve the quality of their lives, but their anxieties

inspired their choice to kill themselves before these medical techniques could be fully

developed. Kevorkian argued that in these cases the option of assisted suicide could have

helped influenced these patients to wait a little while longer until new treatment options could

have been developed. 3

If euthanasia became a normalized, regulated, institutionalized option, there will

inevitably be a black market for those who want these services but cannot afford the medical

services, even if mostly tax payer supported, required to have a euthanasia board hearing.

These people will inevitably seek out corrupt doctors who may be willing to provide these

services if they do not have the medical insurance to provide these services or if their appeal

was turned down from a legally sanctioned board.

The one thing that a euthanasia seeker may find appealing in seeking this option from a

doctor willing to do this in a black market capacity is the painless aspects of this suicide option.

A doctor willing to do this would instantly become a murder, and would need to start thinking

about questions that murderers must consider, such as how to dispose of the bodies of their

3Belkin, Lisa. “Doctor Tells of First Death Using His Suicide Device.” New York Times. June, 6,
1990.
“clients”. The most logical way to dispose of the body, if burying in it a secluded area is not

practical, is to extract the patient’s organs that could be sold in the organ black market and

cremate the rest of the body.

We may see the development of corrupt cremation services that could provide these

services for black market euthanasia physicians. If the patient cannot afford the services of

traditional euthanasia services (or could not get approval for them), morally degraded,

psychopathic, physicians may be open to giving the client a generous discount on the basis of

the profits they could generate from the value of the “clients” organs in the black market.

One of the negative secondary effects of this trend will be a small boost in the illegal

organ black market. Local, state, and federal agencies must anticipate this trend and prepare

legislation and resources to deal with it. The first step is to require that all euthanasia

specialists become licensed. Secondly, there must be a legally sanctioned process for

euthanasia to be carried out, to include the methods of killing the patient, standardized by state

or county laws. This will help cover the state from potential allegations of murder later on as a

consequence to a murder based lawsuit.

The researcher will cover another aspect of the issue brought up earlier in this

examination of the euthanasia. As I mentioned earlier, one method to block euthanasia is to

argue that the proponents is “incompetent”. The researcher sees a potentially dangerous trend

here, to be exploited by critic’s of euthanasia, where it is easier to declare someone as

“incompetent”.

The danger the researcher sees here is that any precedents making it easier to be

deemed incompetent in euthanasia cases may end up becoming applied in non-medicalcases

as well. The only legal control the researcher sees for this situation is to establish legal codes

that recognize differences between euthanasia situations and non-euthanasia cases, and legal

competency tests must be specially developed with an understanding that there are
differences between these situations. This will hopefully control some of the legal spillage that

will come from euthanasia hearings that could have undue influences over other areas of the

law.

In any case, many believe that the current health care system in the country is decaying,

where private sector worker’s incomes are too meager to keep it sustained. This has spawned

ideas that the nation’s health care system must receive more support from the public sector

rather than the market sector. We are witnessing an experiment in this process right now, with

the implementation of Obamacare.

The researcher hates to say it, but the taboo ideas of euthanasia, which Jack

Kevorkian tried to bring up, may end up creeping back into public debate again. I would hope

that any debate this leads to administrative structures supporting that are patient centric. In

processing euthanasia requests, I would also hope they place more weight on the (potentially

conflicting) interests of their families, rather than merely considering the cold cost-benefits

analysis of the hospitals involved.

 Sources
Bel-kin, Lisa. “Doctor Tells of First Death Using His Suicide Device.” New York Times. June, 6,
1990.

Unknown author. “Jack Kevorkian Biography”. biography.com. A&E Television Networks.

Last updated: December 3, 2015. Last viewed: May 7, 2018.
https://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141