Dr. Kevorkian Was Convicted of Murder 25 Years Ago Today
Examining the mixed legacy of a fighter for patient autonomy.

Today marks the 25th anniversary of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's conviction of second-degree murder for performing euthanasia on Thomas Youk, a Michigan man suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's Disease. Kevorkian, a medical pathologist, had been defying state laws by engaging in assisted suicide—he claimed to help more than 130 people die—often using machines he invented like the Thanatron (which delivered lethal doses of narcotics) and the Mercitron (which delivered carbon monoxide) and instructing patients how to use them to commit suicide. But this was different. Kevorkian was not assisting a suicide. Kevorkian videotaped himself injecting Youk with lethal chemicals. He was doing all the work. And despite having received Youk's informed consent, the Michigan Court considered it murder.
The United States has come a long way since Kevorkian began crusading to legalize assisted suicide. Today, physician-assisted suicide is legal in 11 jurisdictions: California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. One can think of physician-assisted suicide as "active euthanasia" because the physician is providing the means and the instructions, but the patient performs the suicide. "Passive" euthanasia, where a physician or other caregiver ends a patient's life while the patient acquiesces, is illegal throughout the U.S.
Autonomous adults have the right to govern their bodies freely, provided they respect the equal rights of others. Self-ownership includes the right to commit suicide. People have the right to request a physician's assistance to commit suicide. They also have the right to ask a physician to perform euthanasia. Assuming a physician has accurately informed a patient of the prognosis and the patient gave informed consent, the government should not block physicians from respecting the patient's request to end their life.
Active and passive euthanasia are grim exercises for physicians like me who decided to become doctors because we wanted to save lives. But our mission includes doing what we can to ease the physical and emotional pain accompanying illness. Treating illness and ending suffering are often in tension. In painful terminal illnesses, assisting patients to end their lives—end their suffering—can comport with the doctor's creed. Yet many doctors, including myself, might consider the act too objectionable to perform. They can refer such patients to doctors more willing to assist.
The governments in Belgium, the Netherlands, and a few other European countries don't block patients from exercising their right to end their lives and permit physicians to either assist patients or perform life-ending procedures. Similarly, since 2016, Canada has removed government obstacles to active and passive euthanasia, dubbing the practice "Medical Assistance in Dying" (MAID).
Yet there have been several reports of Canadian health care practitioners misusing MAID. In Canada's taxpayer-funded single-payer health system, scarce resources can influence clinicians' behavior. There are documented instances of physicians offering MAID to patients "as though it was one of many standard treatment options." There are confirmed cases of providers offering MAID to Canadian veterans with spinal cord injuries when they tried to get costly resources and care. A July 2023 report by Canadian researchers pointed to "significant gaps in public funding for pharmaceuticals, mental health counseling, and dental care…and long wait times for many publicly funded medical services and disability supports. Patients are therefore being guaranteed MAiD but not mental health care, palliative care, disability supports, and myriad other essential health services." At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, one Canadian woman with multiple disabilities but no terminal diagnoses sought MAID because "she simply cannot afford to keep on living."
The government monopoly on the health care system can create perverse incentives for physicians and caseworkers to promote euthanasia over chronic treatment and support.
Ironically, the Canadian government respects people's right to end their lives but not the right to seek health care from a provider outside of the government-run system.
Recently, Canada's Health Minister postponed plans to offer MAID for mental illnesses. The Netherlands has the most experience providing assisted suicide to people with mental health disorders, having done so since the 1990s. But it is much more challenging for health care practitioners to offer euthanasia for mental illnesses than for physical ailments. Even in the Netherlands, practice standards for euthanasia in people with mental illnesses remain controversial and evolving.
For one thing, suicidal ideation can be a symptom of a correctable problem. Should mental health professionals simply agree to end the lives of patients with suicidal ideation, or should they refuse unless the patient first agrees to treatment? And when can a mental health practitioner safely conclude that the mental health problem is irremediable?
Then, there is the matter of determining whether a patient's mental condition impairs decision-making capacity, making informed consent difficult, if not impossible.
There are many thorny medical, psychiatric, and ethical issues that the health professions still need to resolve if they want to be able to help people exercise their right to end their lives without experiencing moral conflict themselves. Lawmakers, too, need to explicitly protect the rights of patients seeking to end their lives and the health practitioners who assist them and establish clear legal boundaries around the issue. However, the principle remains: self-ownership includes the right to end one's life.
Jack Kevorkian died in June 2011 at the age of 83. He had kidney and respiratory failure, and, knowing his prognosis, he refused artificial attempts to prolong his life. His death was reportedly painless. He needed no assistance. In the 1980s and '90s, politicians and pundits often ridiculed him, and he was the subject of stand-up comics' jokes. Some called him "Dr. Death." Others called him "Jack the Dripper." History should remember him as a fighter for patient autonomy and a champion for the "right to die."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“As it turns out, there’s not really a gentle way to kill someone.” – Emma Camp
So we will use euphemisms like "assisted suicide" and "medical assistance in dying". There are too many instances of dubiously consensual euthanasia, and perverse incentives by the medical profession tempted to play God. Like hospitals in the UK deciding for a family that further treatment was useless for a child and taking control of the child away from the parents so the physicians could impose their will on the situation. Euthanasia is a corrupting influence on the medical profession. Doctors should not be given a license to kill.
Of course we kill civilization itself when we turn healers into people who take lives. I have dependend in many situations on people who will not just agree with me because I am scared or desperate or not thinking straight. I surely don't want to encourage bastards to actually look for me in those situations so they can kill me, medicate me , imprison me,change my sex, kill my baby
when we turn healers into people who take lives
Canadian physicians should have been kept 1000 miles away from assisted suicide. Those are two activities that should never meet, because the physician ceases being a healer and instead becomes a God.
The thing that has really amazed me is that anyone thinks it's not a complete moral/ethical nightmare to recommend or sanction assisted suicide for mental illness when half the goal of treating serious mental illnesses is preventing suicide.
If Physicians wanted to "play God," they would neither heal nor assist suicide, since that is all any alleged God has ever done in the wake of human illness and infirmity.
The alleged son of an alleged god did allegedly heal some sick and disabled people. And reports of other such miracles attributed to divine intervention are fairly common.
"Alleged" is the operative term here.
By contrast, Reason and Science actually have healed billions when left free to do so. So much so that the leprosy that stigmatized people in Biblical times is almost not a thing in developed lands.
Wow. You can't even tolerate a simple common expression. And Atheists claim not to be religious.
When the expression "play God" is used to justify stopping the relief of suffering, the curing of diseases, or ameliorating horrible human conditions, then yes, the expression "play God" is offensive to human life and flourishing and all who make it possible.
They laughed when Governor Palin claimed that socialist medicine would lead to death panels. But that was the plan all along.
No Libertarian wants to imprison you if you are peaceful and non-fraudulent. What you decide for own life is your own choice, we just want the same for our own lives too.
The true test of ownership is the ultimate right of use and disposal. That includes both the things in your life and life itself. Without that right of self-ownerehip, an Individual is a slave to whomever does have ownership.
I fully agree that this is a dangerous area with the potential for many perverse incentives. However, I've also watched the suffering of terminal patients. Patients with no hope of recovery who are in unendurable pain that we needlessly prolong. We do things in the name of "life" that are far crueler than the most horrific means of execution. Our current laws let us treat our pets with more compassion than we are allowed to grant our family members.
Yes, keep worrying about and watching for perverse incentives. But don't go so far that you deny the truly suffering a last measure of dignity and release.
Yes, keep worrying about and watching for perverse incentives. But don’t go so far that you deny the truly suffering a last measure of dignity and release.
The best summation ever. Thank you.
"pain that we needlessly prolong . . . don’t go so far that you deny the truly suffering a last measure of dignity and release."
Sure. Don't prolong it. Pulling the plug, so to speak, is perfectly acceptable.
But don't twist words to say that inaction is action, or to accept the grotesque proposition that merely not killing someone is "prolonging" their life.
You're the one twisting words here. If your dog were incurable and suffering, would you simply stand by and insist that 'nature run its course'? Most of us do not. We take the beloved dog to the vet so the suffering can stop. Why do you insist that I be more cruel to my grandmother than I can be to my cat?
I think it's you. By your logic, I could be prolonging your life right now, and you mine.
Admittedly, the merits of the issue is another matter. It may be that the potential for perverse incentives is too great, and more fundamentally, the human capacity for murderous intent and a depraved heart is too inherent, to allow room for any rule permitting intentional killing of another for supposed compassionate reasons, on a practical level - even if one can imagine justifications on a theoretical level.
Of course, it's all nonscientific, metaphysical moral beliefs, all the way down. But humans are not the same as animals. We kill animals to eat them, and we take beloved pets to the vet generally because their lives are more expendable and it doesn't make sense to spend $20,000 or $100,000 or even millions of dollars like we do with human lives, even devoting 1/5 of GDP to it. I don't accept the framing that it can be "cruel" to not kill someone, that's pretty twisty. There is also always stories of miraculous recovery by people who were given an absolute 0% chance. At the end of the day, people will see euthanasia as playing God.
I am both a Extropian Transhumanist Singularitarian wanting immortality and a supporter of the right of the Individual to end his or her life, whether alone or with assistance. The choice should be yours when human innovation makes it possible.
Perhaps the best way to help the terminally ill and suffering without the perverse incentives would be to classify what Dr. Kevorkian did as Palliative Care, not Health Care, since health is based on the premise that life is capable and and worthy of preservation. Doctors could specialize in either, but keep them separate in their practice.
If they were going to bust Dr. Jack Kevorkian, why not bust everyone who sells cigarettes, alcohol, or even motocross vehicles even to consenting adults? Aren't those just slow-motion or episodic suicide?
Because the intent of those activities is not to die or cause death. There's a moral difference between making choices that make certain ways of dying more likely and choosing to end a life.
The cops should raid the donut shops in that case. And they wouldn't have far to walk to do it.
And the cops could "Walk Like An Egyptian" to do it too.
🙂
😉
https://youtu.be/Cv6tuzHUuuk?si=R8inFxiTO5acLkhD
Euthanasia is a corrupting influence on the medical profession.
No.
As your examples demonstrate, government is a corrupting influence on the medical profession.
People should be allowed any care they seek that someone else is willing to provide.
A system in which government provides the health care and can decide to euthanize you at its discretion is an entirely different thing.
Euthanasia is a corrupting influence on the medical profession. Doctors should not be given a license to kill.
I agree with this on a medical level, but an individual should be able to self-check-out whenever they choose. Having an "assisted option" is leagues better than walking into a house and finding your FIL's brains on the ceiling and his two-day old corpse sitting in a chair.
I know this shit will happen regardless, but just pondering a cleaner option, especially with fucked-up terminal illness.
What bullshit, "I agree with this on a medical level"
You would be compost in a real debate.
I am sure I detect a gross insensitivity in you. What you appear to want is , the world to take your level of negativity as the global legal definition.
Making everything easier makes everythng more difficult.
I'm having trouble understanding what your point\objection is here.
(truly)
Of course you are...because like that same person you are using only you as the yardstick. What does "I agee with you on a medical level' mean except "I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU " 🙂
Outside of the gibberish, what is your point?
If I am in the last stages of terminal cancer, I want euthanasia options. The Mercitron vs the 44 magnum is perfect example. I relatively peaceful death in bed at home or blood and brains all over the place.
We do this for our pets, for Christ's sweet sake.
Again, this should not be in a doctor's hands. This is individual choice, and possibly the aid of a specialized technician.
It's definitely a topic with plenty of gray areas. I support a person being able to go out on their own terms, especially if they are facing terminal or agonizing disease. I don't like giving doctors an incentive to off people rather than find treatments to improve quality of life. It is immoral to have government encourage the practice.
It's one of those rights that feels very dangerous to toy with too much and there is harm in leaning either way on a policy level.
Having an “assisted option” is leagues better than walking into a house and finding your FIL’s brains on the ceiling and his two-day old corpse sitting in a chair.
If you really can't deal with living there are cleaner ways to make your exit without involving another person. Leaving a mess is a choice.
I agree with the leaving a mess is a choice.
I disagree that you can exit without involving another person. Unless you take the long hike in the north woods, someone will have to haul away your carcass.
I meant in the more direct sense of having someone actually do the killing upon you, but you are correct. It is very difficult to truly go solo.
re: "Leaving a mess is a choice."
If we keep locking up the Dr Kevorkians and infantilizing the internet, no it's really not - at least, not always. We're denying people access to the help, to the tools, even to the knowledge. And that's before considering that your feasible options are a lot more limited once you're in the terminal stages of your illness.
Could you or I, in our physical and mental prime, find clean ways to end our own lives? Almost certainly. Could your aged and bedridden mother when she's in the last stages of her terminal illness? Likely not.
But that kind of talk sucks the very life and purpose and resolve out of the people it claims to help.
When a dying person sees that you would feel better if they would end it all, guess what, there goes the only comfort and help you could have, the people close to you seeing you to the end.
Yeah, it's a right people ought to be able to exercise. I think they found about the right line in Kevorkian's case. Providing the means for someone who clearly will not have much quality of life (when drugs that are effective for the purpose are strictly controlled) is one thing.
The problem is every single time it's permitted it starts to cross the line into murdering the unwilling. Here in Canada there are thousands of cases of the elderly being heavily pressured, or it being done on the incapacitated, or the disabled and even poor being pressed. But I've heard the same often happens in Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.
Yeah, it gets really perverse when government run healthcare gets involved. See my comment above.
My support for assisted dying has wavered a bit since that shit really got going in Canada and other countries. But I still think it's a right people have that ought to be respected.
Single-payer, government-run health care with the political agendas that come with governments is the real enemy, not the Dr. Kevorkians or Derek Humphreys of the world.
I'm sure the same Nazis who ran Euthanasia programs for the "mentally unfit" would also have put troops in psych wards if they started attempting to kill themselves en masse.
There was a story las year about a disabled Canadian veteran that needed a different kind of wheelchair or something. Which was supposed to be provided by the government. In stead of prescribing the right equipment, they sent her a letter suggesting government euthanasia services.
This is Trudeau’s Canada, and a cautionary tale for America.
Please don't tell me that actually happened with your Father-In-Law! My kindest thought to you or anyone else if that was the case!
🙁
A friend of my Grandfather (and myself) was so tormented with shingles affecting his lungs, he couldn't hold down food and could barely breathe and speak, so he attempted to blow his brains out with a shotgun...and failed! He spent his remaining mangled days in a hospital. No one deserves such a fate!
Lifelong friend's FIL, with very advanced stage 4 cancer.
I did not find the body, but I helped clean the scene. This man should've had other options.
Oooof! Again, kindest thoughts to the Father-In-Law, the friend, the loved ones, and to you for seeing the aftermath!
Yes, there needs to be something besides either lives of chronic, senseless suffering or bureaucracies eliminating “useless eaters.”. Putting the decision solely in the patient’s hands is the goal.
So you are saying he made a good choice shooting himself.
This is the humane view:
"What distinguishes “ordinary” from “extraordinary” in Catholic moral theology is not whether the treatment is “ordinary” in the sense of being normal or frequently used, but rather whether the treatment is beneficial (ordinary) or excessively burdensome (extraordinary) to the patient."
Ask anyone who professionally works with they dying and the main horror is the 'Am I a burden" and if your loved ones are saying, Gee, it would be easier on us if you just killed yourself ---where is hope?
Catholic moral theology
Oxymoron.
"One can think of physician-assisted suicide as "active euthanasia" because the physician is providing the means and the instructions, but the patient performs the suicide. "Passive" euthanasia, where a physician or other caregiver ends a patient's life while the patient acquiesces, is illegal throughout the US."
I think this is the right way to go about it. No "license to kill" with the active version. I mean you could argue that a particularly charismatic doctor could convince you to kill yourself, but I'm not sure how you could regulate that away.
I mean you could argue that a particularly charismatic doctor could convince you to kill yourself, but I’m not sure how you could regulate that away.
Ban Lori Lieberman and/or Roberta Flack.
I thought that Passive Euthanasia was removing life support and Active Euthanasia was administering life-endng drugs?
NO, you butchered the whole moral view
"extraordinary measures need not be taken to keep someone alive, e.g., the use of a ventilator when a person's breathing system is shutting down." My father had this situation but we'd have never killed him, call it whatever euphemism you want.
All bullshit self-deceiving mumbo jumbo.If you are key to someone killing themselves then you are key.
First THings had K.'s number from the start
". It is important to understand why he was convicted: Youk had Lou Gehrig’s disease and Kevorkian lethally injected him—and videotaped the deed for posterity. The body was barely cold before he took the tape to euthanasia advocate Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes, who readily hosted a nationwide viewing. That forced the prosecutor to bring charges. Why did Kevorkian take such a risk when he had a clear path to assist all the suicides he wanted? Because assisted suicide alone couldn’t help Kevorkian reach his ultimate goal.
That goal was human vivisection—detailed in his book Prescription Medicide—which I quote in the post.
I conclude:
That a disturbed man like Jack Kevorkian can be so touted, so remade, indicates how profoundly lost we are in the fog of relativism. At this point, we must face the truth: The real problem isn’t Kevorkian: It is us."
If you are saying that suicide and euthanasia are two distinct things and should be treated as such, then I agree with you.
Spoken like someone who has never watched a loved one die of cancer or went through hospice. If this is my fate, I'll choose my own exit; it will not be influenced by people like you.
Your hubris needn't wait til death !!!! 🙂
Why would you think I see you as the great important superstar to be convinced. I know your type and that is a losing project.
My mother did die of cancer and my father of heart failure and you are just a proud whiner who even has to have the center stage as you exit.
Tough subject but I think the author did a good job of balancing the issues. My father was a pharmacist by trade and he actually put together a suicide kit for himself. When my mother died he was deeply depressed and for a while unable to take care of himself. My brother who was taking care of him at the time found his kit and took away. I had very mixed feelings about it but did not interfere. That was about 8 years ago and dad is still around at 94. I'm glad he is. He's still sharp, his overall health is good and he still gets some joy out of life. And I still enjoy his company.
In any case I think people should have information about various means of suicide and if they decide to go down that path those means should be available. I can only hope that they will think long and hard about not only themselves but those they leave behind.
well said
Kindest thoughts to you and yours here...and genius on your Father's part!
Whatever any of our differences here in the Comments, I hope we could be united in humanity and a desire to avoid senseless suffering for fellow members of our species.
Kind of you to say.
Euthanasia should always be done with a bullet to the brain stem, with all other means forbidden. This includes "passive" measures like removing somebody's feeding tube or turning off their life support machinery.
To do otherwise is to pretend that we're NOT making a conscious decision to end the life of somebody when we have the means to allow them to continue living.
I am NOT saying to killing somebody with a terminal condition is necessarily wrong. It very often CAN be the best option for somebody. However, let's be honest about what we're doing, rather than sanitizing the process in an attempt to spare people's feelings.
I see where you are coming from here. But I think that in many cases at least part of the point is to spare people's feelings.
Not to mention that a bullet to the brain is messy and makes an open casket funeral difficult.
I can only imagine that, even if their death was clearly immanent, it would be pretty upsetting and traumatizing to see a loved one with their head all blown up from a gunshot.
IMMINENT not immanent , which means inhering in things.
You seem to miss your own point ,which is the claim that it affects no one but the deceased is moronic. I have known several suicides in my life and the result seems always to be that it destroys the natural life of all survivors,they are rarely ever the same after someone they love intentionally takes their own life.
It is wrong to take a human life.
You don't even see the distinction between extraordinary means and ordinary , so bent are you on being right and appearing saintly.
Suicide is a natural, human and civil right.
If itwere you would have no need to state it some 3000 years after civilization started.
It is certainly not natural (and I've been close to about 4 suicides myself) and you meant 'humane' but said 'human' a sign of cut-and-paste. and it can't be a civil right as all thel predecessors to suicide laws had it as a crime.
You can safely be ignore. You aim to talk natural morality and miss it completely
I'm gonna be efficient in my comments for today. Whatever this guy said, I think the opposite.
state sanctioned killing is wrong in all forms.
I do treaty have a problem executing serial killers and outright traitors. Thomas Creech, who murdered my great uncle, is still on death row in Idaho. They were supposed to have executed him at the end of February, but couldn’t find a good vein to administer the lethal injection.
He’s killed dozens of people. He even murdered at least one person. While in prison. I can’t think of a single reason to keep a monster like that alive.
I'm sorry that's terrible. I'd prefer he be outlawed and you can deal with him.
Kindest thoughts to you, your Great-Uncle and your family! While I'm not normally a death penalty fan due to the fact that human systems are very capable of error, this one wouldn't make me shed a tear.
With that said, though, please don't become a monster yourself. Save all shootings of Commies and Lefties for imminent threats to life and limb.
🙂
😉
People have the right to request a physician's assistance to commit suicide. They also have the right to ask a physician to perform euthanasia.
Uh huh. So, suppose there's no physician. What of your "right" then? If nobody can/will give you something you desire, exactly what right have you been deprived of and how?
By definition, if another person has to provide it to you, you cannot have a right to it.
Anybody who doesn't understand this is the farthest thing from a libertarian (or even a conservative). This is Marxist school ideology, straight out. You try this disingenuous game of painting it up as "autonomy" and play to the heartstrings of long-suffering patients - but at the end of the day, your argument is that you're OWED something you cannot/will not provide for yourself.
Screw that, and screw you. Marxist.
What we're talking about here is a right of both parties, Doctor and Patient, to contract to perform an assisted suicide, just as LGBTQ are talking about a right of two (or more?) adult parties to make a marriage contract recognized by the State.
The right to make contracts is certainly not Marxist and is as Capitalist as it gets.
That's not what he said. He didn't say, "You have a right to contract with..." He said, which I straight up quoted: "They have the right to request a physician's..." 'They have a right to ask a physician..."
Well, what if there are no physicians? How do they exercise that "right"? What are they being denied when they LITERALLY CAN'T "request a physician" or "ask a physician"? How do you have a right to something someone else has to provide? You're confusing rights with entitlements - which, of course, any Marxist wants to equate.
You don't have the right to a physician at all - because you don't ever have a right to someone else. Or their services. Not for suicide; not even for ACTUAL health care.
The contract right you speak of is one in which you're free to enter into contracts. It's not at issue here.
(Also - to correct your statement, gays can't get "married." They can be lawfully wedded, pretty much exclusively for tax/estate purposes, but marriage is still 100% off limits to them. As it should be.)
It should be a legal option, even though the actions and products of other human beings are not a right.
But religionists who think that Man is the property of a Supernatural God and who control legislation don't even want there to be a legal option, even with willing and able Physicians. Ditto with everyone else with a stake in keeping an individual alive without consent.
Why should it be a legal option?
For that matter, should every bridge come with a retained pusher to help nudge everyone who wants to jump off the edge? Should it be a legal option to hire someone to shove you in front of a subway car? Should a Munchausen parent be able to mutilate their kid on the altar of the rainbow cult? If a bulimic comes to you asking you to hold her hair, should you do so?
You know what would be really fun? Forging papers to get away with assassination. "Yes, I killed him - but as you can see, I have all the paperwork filled out. And since you won't be able to question him..." lol.
Look, I get it with you people. You're grossly myopic. You only think "bodily autonomy!" and then you turn off your brain. But take a single step after that, and the absurdity becomes crystal clear. But you refuse to ever take that step, because clarity is the LAST thing you want on the subject.
Kind of an odd supportive take for assisted dying, from a website that claims there's no possible humane way to kill someone....
That was one article from one author, not intended to represent the whole magazine. ENB and Liz Wolfe differ on abortion, as I'm sure the rest of the contributors do too.