As a college student in Michigan ten years ago, I went to see Dr. Jack Kevorkian speak. At the end of his talk, people were allowed to ask questions. After a handful of questions over legal issues, a wheelchair-bound man took the microphone and began accusing Dr. Kevorkian of being a murderer and encouraging people with disabilities to end their lives. The old doctor at the podium tried his best to respond to the baseless accusations, but with every attempt to set the record straight, the man in the wheelchair just became more enraged and more belligerent.
I have no idea who it was that gave this disabled individual the idea that Kevorkian had a desire to kill people in his situation, but the media-crafted persona of him as “Dr. Death” allowed for many people to misunderstand him and to avoid the very simple point that he was trying to make – that it’s not the government’s role to tell people how to deal with the reality of terminal illnesses and unmanageable pain. And the hysteria that followed his fame and his brashness sent this gaunt old man to jail soon after.
Upon his release from jail last week, media outlets seemed incredulous that Kevorkian hasn’t changed his mind about his actions. There’s no reason for him to. He’s standing up for a principle that is fundamental to our rights and to what this country is all about. Our government should not have the right to impose a particular morality upon its citizens. If a person with a terminal illness feels that they wish to control the way they leave this earth, the government should have no right to stop them. If a person dealing with pain so excruciating that they can no longer enjoy their existence decides that death is a better alternative, it’s simply unconscionable to force that person to continue to endure the pain. This man went to prison for 8 years in defense of these rights, and for that, he’s a hero.
In America today, our growing tendency to believe that government has a role in making our moral choices for us is sending more and more people to jail who clearly don’t belong there. In Spokane, a 66-year-old woman named Christine Rose Baggett is facing a felony charge. Baggett suffers from arthritis, two herniated discs in her back, and a bad ankle. Why is this clear menace to society being charged?
What the court record shows is that Baggett admitted purchasing an ounce of marijuana from a man on Aug. 23 for $180. But she gave some of it back to him “as payment for delivering the marijuana to her.”
Baggett, like many other people with similar ailments, had discovered that marijuana is very effective and inexpensive pain reliever. But despite the fact that Washington State voters overwhelmingly voted for the legal use of medical marijuana, prosecutors in Spokane still believe that they’re protecting society by hauling this poor old woman through the court system on technicalities.
Going back to Dr. Kevorkian, do people really believe that by sending someone like him to jail it was going to change his mind? This is a man who already believed that the law was wrong and was expecting to go to jail. Why would following through on the threat have any meaning at all, other than to prove to Kevorkian how dangerous the government has become in following its delusions?
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners. There are a number of reasons for this, but much of it boils down to our collective belief that prison is an effective tool for enforcing moral conformity, rather than just a way to provide justice for victims of crime. We understand that it’s fair and just to have a system where people who harm others are removed from free society and locked up. But it’s time we recognize that jail is not the place for those who aren’t harming anyone but whose personal moral choices we may disapprove of.
There are a whole lot of Republicans out there who could use Dr. Kevorkian’s services. Because Republicanism and brain death are coincident conditions, expediting Republicans on their way to the Hereafter is a win-win for everybody.
I’m way out of the loop … is $180 the standard price for an ounce these days? In my day, an ounce usually set you back $15 or so.
I’m way out of the loop … is $180 the standard price for an ounce these days? In my day, an ounce usually set you back $15 or so.
Damn, you’re old! Just kidding, man…
Lee and others,
This is one of those rare instances when I’m in total agreement with everything you wrote. In the areas you discussed, our government is totally out of line and has no business delving into these matters.
Dr. Kevorkian was somewhat a victim of the right wing “we have to suffer in this world in order to prepare for the next” mentality. That kind of thinking went out with the Spanish Inquistion. Only some hardcore Catholics and Evngelicals still belief we’re here to suffer for “God.”
Marijuanna for medical purposes? You bet! And for recreational purposes, too, for that matter!
Assisted suicide for those suffering tremendously? You bet! Why are we considered “kind” when we put-down our older pets who are suffering yet considered murders when we assist humans who are suffering needlessly?
I, too, agree with the OP: the government has no business getting involved in matters such as these. But then, the government has no business getting involved in a LOT of things it sticks its nose into, so really what happened (and is still happening) is, sadly, no surprise.
I was particularly struck by Kevorkian’s comment about his experience of prison. It was “boring” because he had no one interesting to talk to. This seemed to me a particularly apt and honest assessment. To me this gets to the most dehumanizing thing about prisons. The rationale for prisons appears to be caught between mean and base “punishment” and more lofty goals of reforming individuals who stray from the legal requirements of society. The methods imposed to achieve these separate ends are, to my way of thinking, mutually exclusive. You can’t have prison’s structured the way they are and pretend that they serve both of these ends. If we as a society have decided that the purpose of prison is punishment then we should bring back hard labor camps and be done with it. At least we would be honest about it. And perhaps there is a place for “hardened” murderers and rapists to experience brute punishment. But if we are serious about prisons as institutions of individual reform then something else is required. Prison should be a place where the disenfranchised can be better actualized, through intellectual stimulation and education.
The mismash hybrid that is the contemporary prison system is pernicious. Even more so when it essentially becomes a jobs program for economically depressed communities and a form of corporate welfare.
Of course there are intellectuals like Foucault who say that punishment in a “discipline society” has emerged as the de facto method of cure and educational rehabilitation. So in this sense schools and prisons are not that different really.
You know Gordon, the jailing of Marthat Stewart for “lying” was a waste of time and money. It did, however, had the unintended consequence of causing Martha Stewart’s stock to soar dramatically. Some “punsishment,” huh?
N in Seattle:
Remember the days of four finger lids for $10?
“Acapulco Gold, no stems no seeds that you don’t need, Acapulco Gold some bad asssss weeeeeed!”
~Cheech & Chong
2,3,8 And to think I thought I was the “elder statesman” here…
@7 Apparently, Paris Hilton got off with only three days of a 45 day sentence in jail after failing to appear for an alcohol education program. Justice weaves a funny path sometimes.
6 It’s become exponentially worse in the last 15-20 years. It’s been noticed by a variety of parties that the United States incarcerated more of its citizens than any other nation in the “free world”, and the parties have included entrepreneurs of the mindset that gave us Enron, Worldcom and Blackwater. In many states the operation of the penal system has been privatized, essentially giving private companies the opportunity to collect on fat government contracts under a charter that allows them to warehouse inmates at the lowest possible level of subsistence. The right-wing concepts of incarceration as punishment and “making amends to the victims” helps justify this.
10 My guess is that the jailers found an excuse to kick her out because they didn’t want to put up with her.
Libertarian – your comments about pets ring so true. I was at the vet a few weeks ago and the woman standing by me was asking the vet if it’s worth prolonging her poor dog’s life b/c of his medical conditions.
If we can make that determination for an animal, why can’t a human of sound mind and body make that determination for themselves? I’d like to see an attempted counter-argument to that point.
And while we’re at it – how come those who claim this will lead to huge numbers of people ending their lives don’t read the facts? In the decade or longer this has been available in Oregon, something like 200 people have used the pills and another 400 have gotten them but haven’t used them yet.
The value of death with dignity is that for most people it gives them the piece of mind just knowing its an option if things ever get too bad. And for the few who choose to take that route who am I – or more accurately who is Uncle Sam – to tell them they don’t know what’s best for themselves? I wish Booth Gardner all the luck in pushing for an initiative on this.
Why does 5% of the people have 25% of the prison inmates? For the same reason our nearest competitor is Iran: Theocracies imprison the people they don’t like. We do it by a much more roundabout way than Iran (for appearances sake) but we get to the same place.
In Washington State we’ve had three studies done over the past 15 years about why a state with 8% black people has an inmate population 40% black when we have a sentencing pattern that was supposed to make sentencing racially neutral. In fact, the studies showed, it aggravated the problem. When sentencing discretion was taken away from judges, it was given to prosecutors. So whites get charged with what they did; blacks get charged with what a jury can be made to think they did.
For all the sniffling about Norm Maleng when he croaked, he was hardly some enlightened progressive. He and his deputy, David Boerner, more than anyone else, created the “sentence reform act” in 1981 which gave us our present monstrosity. And in 2005 he first announced that he favored drug treatment over prison for drug users.
WHOOOPIE!! Only 30 years too late! Well, to his credit, it put him out front of the state’s other 38 elected prosecutors, including the jerk in Spokane.
Charlie,
It goes even deeper than that. The racial disparity in arrests also comes from the fact that certain tactics within the drug war are directed with much higher frequency in minority communities…
Sounds like the spirit of Harry Anslinger lives on.
If it’s legal to kill yourself, then insurance companies might have to pay death benefits to suicides’ families.
The legal system of the U.S. has only $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for inspiration.
Lee@15: You are so right!
17 “If it’s legal to kill yourself, then insurance companies might have to pay death benefits to suicides’ families.”
Naaaaah…Insurance companies write policies all the time with all sorts of exclusions. If you check yours you’ll probably find that you’re not covered while flying in an aircraft “not operated by a licensed and scheduled airline”, just as an example. Your dearly beloved are also likely to be out of luck if you happen to buy it while base jumping, mountain climbing, scuba diving or driving in an automobile race.
I thought it was pretty funny when some reporter interviewing Giselle Bundchen asked how much her…uh…anatomy was insured for, and she blurted out, “Are you f*ckin’ kidding? I do extreme sports!” She then went on to explain that most of her contracts for “shoots” stipulate that she can’t leave until they’re done.
Lee,
It’s an excellent point, if somewhat confined to the very sick in these examples. Maybe if we were providing the best possible care to people outside of assisted suicide a better case could be made that the state had any moral authority in this instance.
GBS @ 17 and Art @ 19
The only two exemptions from the antitrust laws extant in federal law are Major League Baseball and the insurance industry. Think about that one. When we think of how much we pay in premiums (auto, home, disability, medical, etc.) yearly, I’d guess that only taxes suck up more of our income. But, at least we get some return for our taxes. Most of the time, for our insurance premiums, all we get is a denial of the claim. I say this as a guy who makes his living suing insurance companies. The insurance industry is nothing less than evil. They don’t even hire competent adjusters any more in their drive to save costs.
21 It would appear that the RIAA and MPAA think they’re exempt from antitrust as well.