Assisted suicide Essay

A Controversial Figure: Jack Kevorkian

A lot of ethical discussions are sparked by the contentious subject of assisted suicide as parties argue for and against the practice. Jack Kevorkian, however, was a staunch supporter of the activity’s sanctity and did not originally waste time discussing its benefits or drawbacks. Instead, he immersed himself fully in it. Given that he satisfies the definition of the word in its most literal meaning, Kevorkian can be regarded as a hero to society. The pathologist bravely defended himself after being charged with first-degree murder despite participating in the practice of using euthanasia to end the pain of others. Therefore, he did not only show mercy and compassion in the process but also courage in representing himself in his court hearings.

The Right to Choose: Assisted Suicide

While the morality of his actions can be debated by the supposition that no one is entitled to help someone take his own life, the credibility of such arguments can be nullified by several counterarguments supporting euthanasia. Among these counter-arguments is the provision of a right to die by the constitution. Although not explicitly stated, a competent person with a terminal illness has the right to avoid discomfort or pain in letting the illness take its prognostic course (Dickinson and Leming 107 ). Moreover, this right is within the freedom of choosing a dignified death and the practice of one’s personal autonomy. Thereby, in seeking the professional services of Kevorkian, the patients were competent enough to trace him and ask for an eased painless death. In the granting of their request, Kevorkian performed a merciful act as these were terminal patients whose deaths were certain. Kevorkian thereby saved the patients from the dread of waiting for a painful death.

Restoring Dignity in Terminal Illness

Another argument that supports Kevorkian is the fact that most value systems have led people to believe in the intrinsic dignity that each human being must be accorded. Each human being wants freedom from humiliation and to take pride in living. Terminal illness and permanent disabilities often take away that dignity since patients have no hope of ever feeling whole again. Whenever that dignity is stripped off, people often claim a loss in the quality of their lives. It is up to brave personalities, such as Kevorkian, to offer their services if the patient believes that continuation with life offers him or her no dignity and that a dignified ending would restore it in his or her last moments. Therefore, Kevorkian was in no wrong when he accepted to help his patients have a dignified death by their own choice.

The Personal Decision: State Intervention

In addition, the decision to take one’s life is a personal matter and should not warrant the state’s intervention as it did during the trial of Jack Kevorkian. Moreover, people who have not been in the position of judging the quality of other’s life should not demonize Kevorkian for his initiative (Dickinson and Leming 108). Being in the medical practice for years, Kevorkian had first-hand knowledge of death that only doctors and terminally-ill patients know. Thereby, for him to accept to assist the patients in their suicide, he must have empathically known their situation. What really made people view him as a threat to society was his outspoken charismatic personality that was uncharacteristic of the stereotypical doctor. However, judging the man from what he stood for and the national debate that he sparked by his bold stance on euthanasia, Jack Kevorkian was a hero.

Work Cited

Dickinson, George E., and Leming, Michael R.. “Obituary for Jack Kevorkian.” In Annual Editions: Dying, Death and Bereavement (pp. 107-108). McGraw-Hill, 2014.