"The View" Hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar Defend Jack Kevorkian's Murder, Suicides

Life News ^ | 3/26/08 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, longtime hosts of the chatty television program "The View," praised Jack Kevorkian in a recent episode. Following news that Kevorkian has planned a Congressional bid, they praised him for killing more than 130 people in assisted suicides and murdering a disabled patient.

Kevorkian, a convicted murderer and assisted suicide crusader, made his candidacy for a Detroit-area Congressional seat official on Monday.

Justin McCarthy, a news analyst at Media Research Center, noted the comments from "The View" hosts in a recent post on MRC's blog Newsbusters.

Goldberg said she’s a "big fan" of Kevorkian "because he believed that he could help people who were in, in a place where no one was helping them."

"Euthanasia, like race, is one of those things nobody wants to talk about. It makes people very uncomfortable. I think euthanasia is, is an important thing and it should be there for people to make that decision if they chose to," she said.

Goldberg did not mention her belief about involuntary euthanasia, where patients are frequently killed by family members or medical staff without their knowledge or consent.

Joy Behar wondered: "Why is he a bad guy? I don't understand it...it’s over my head somewhere."

She went further than Goldberg in defending Kevorkian's killing a disabled patient.

Kevorkian has admitted to killing more than 130 people, including the televised death of Thomas Youk, netting him a 25-year prison sentence.

"He helped a guy who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, take himself out of this world because the guy was in excruciating terror," Behar said in defending the murder that landed Kevorkian in jail for several years before his parole.

"The thing about Kevorkian is that I don't consider him a bad guy," she concluded.

During the show, Sherri Shepherd cracked a few crass jokes -- most notably about how Kevorkian could help presidential candidate John McCain with "an exit strategy."

As is typically the case, pro-life host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was the only one to speak up for the moral or ethical position on the bioethics question.

"The lines get blurry if you're dealing with someone who’s life is almost in control, in someone else’s hands," she said. "You know, there are a lot of things. There are a lot of gray areas in that whole conversation."

Hasslebeck said she was worried about people who have control of the finances of a patient wanting to end their lives in order to inherit their possessions.

ACTION: Send your complaints to The View by going to this web site.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Simple solution: control your own finances."

Very good advice --- very good --- but sometimes not so simple. For instance, as soon as Terri Schiavo lost consciousness on the night of Feb 25, 1990, and for the next 15 years, her finances were controlled by her estranged husband, even after he set up housekeeping and had two children with another woman. March 31 is the 3rd anniversary of the day her "husband" finally got rid of her via court-ordered starvation.

[wagglebee]

Hoping the irony here is apparent.

It seldom is when dealing with the culture of death.

Nearly three centuries ago, Jonathan Swift published an essay entitled A Modest Proposal; it is considered to be one of the finest works of satire ever written, yet today the culture of death would see it as a "how to" guide.

[Psycho_Bunny]

OK. I’ve got a question for you. And it’s a serious question, and I’m genuinely interested in an intelligible answer, provided you have one.

In one of his books, I can’t recall which one – maybe “A Bridge Too Far” – Cornelius Ryan describes a parachute jump into German-held territory in which an American officer, while gliding to the ground, was hit in the stomach by a phosphorous, anti-aircraft tracer bullet. The officer landed in a ditch in a field under fire.

(To his credit – and in a prime example of journalistic ethics – Ryan refuses to name the officer because he was well liked and respected, and Ryan doesn’t want the story to be misinterpreted as a besmirching of the officers name.)

There was no saving this man: his stomach and intestines were on fire. And several men who took temporary cover in the trench recalled the officer – who couldn’t reach his gun - begging them to shoot him. None did.

But at some point, someone took the officer’s gun and put it in his hand. And several men who later took refuge in the trench remembered seeing the officer, with smoke coming out if his stomach and a self-inflicted gunshot to the head.

Where is the soul of that hero? Where is the soul of the man who put the gun in his hand – burning in hell for enabling the suicide? Was he a murderer?

Is the officer’s soul burning also for not living out the last 15 or 20 minutes of his life?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bless you, Twink, for giving your mom tender loving care. And bless Hospice for getting her the morphine when she needed it.

I'm gong to repeat something I said in a previous post, which had an inexplicable typo (or computer-o) which left out half of a sentence and changed the meaning. (Let's see if it comes out right this time :o)

---

It was at leat 25 years ago that Dr. Jose Espinosa, an expert in geriatric and terminal cancer care, testified that in all his years of practice he had never seen "intractable pain" --- but he had seen "intractable doctors and nurses."

And if this was true 25 years ago, I daresay it's even more true now: acupuncture, narcotics, and other pain relief exists which can truly eliminate severe pain in terminal patients. (I say "in terminal patients" because some of these measures would cause side-effects which would not be acceptable for non-terminal patients --- for instance, a pain med that destroys liver function in 8 months --- whereas that is perfectly appropriate for a person who has not that long to live.)

I have heard that some doctors hesitate to give "cocktails" of narcotic meds at effective doses because they are afraid of legal scrutiny of their use of controlled substances.

In any case, it makes me angry that there are hospices which lag behind in effective comfort care. Here's a good thing to read: the article on the left side of the page about better approaches to end-of-life care.

[Swordfished]

Your original response was regarding concerns that relatives will kill a person off so that they can inherit their money, you said to keep control of your own finances.

When I brought up cases where this becomes impossible, you said to go ahead and trust the family.

What if family members who you have trusted then decided to kill you off? Or does that not concern you?

No it doesn't concern me. A person gives up some decision-making power when they aren't in full control of enough of their faculties to make their own decisions. That's why a will is so important because the person could specify that their money be used up to prolong their life...to the last penny if desired. Maybe they could even take out a subprime loan and make it last even longer.

I've seen a couple cases in my personal experience where the family had to make the decision to end special life support. The attitude wasn't, "okay let's kill them off so we can maximize profit". The attitude was reverent, compassionate, and common sense. At some point it becomes an insult to life to prop it up for tens of thousands of dollars a month with no hope of recovery.

Should an individual go bankrupt feeding coins into the life-support machine? Should a family? The individual has that option if they specify it in a will. The family, if it has decision-making power, has the option.

[smartin]

That’s a dumb question. Those are far too painful. LOL

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bless you, Mercat. Continuous morphine does (sometimes) reduce overall life expectancy, but it is absolutely sound morally to give a terminal patient as much as they need to control pain. Your intention was to give her as much as she needed --- and she could still speak to Jesus at the end? Wow. You cared for her as perfectly as it is humanly possible, as far as I can see.

Again, bless you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Twink, beautiful. Thank you for telling us.

[wagglebee]

A will does nothing of the sort, a will is meaningless until a person has died.

I’ve got a question for you, if money wasn’t a factor would you still support euthanasia?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Why not liquid morphine, for the pain, until it’s well and truly your time to go? My father had a very peaceful, prayerful, and pain-free death 27 months after he got a diagnosis of lung cancer. He had liquid morphine, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and chocolate ice cream :o)

[wagglebee]

Your attempt to equate what happens on a battlefield (in a novel no less) to euthanasia is an insult to both the brave Americans who have served in combat and those who are dying of natural causes.

[smartin]

I’ll take that under advisement. Thanks.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think the situation you describe is like the situation of a person in the 50th floor of a burning building. With a roaring inferno behind you, all exits blocked or burning, and a 500-ft drop in front of you, life and death are absolutely outside of the scope of your choice. (There' nothing you can do to prevent death. Preventing death is not an option.) The only thing you DO have the power to choose is terror and agony on the one hand, or the cessation of terror and agony on the other.

If the person is in their right mind, it' a classic case of double effect. Sometimes one act has two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is not intended either as a means or as an end. And intention is very important in the moral evaluation of acts.

So if the person acts to avoid terror and agony (survival being entirely out of their hands) -- that is a moral choice.

Or, on the other hand, if the person is NOT in their right mind, but is jumping out of the window in sheer adrenalin-forced terror, that also is not an immoral act because the person is not responsible for their act.

With me so far?

In the case of the dying officer --- in my judgment --- the intention could have been not to destroy his life, even as a means to an end, but purely to destroy the sensation of pain.

If, per impossible, he had managed to shoot out the pain receptors in his brain, without killing himself, it would have been enough, he would have been (in his horrible circumstances) satisfied wth that. In my judgment, his direct intention was to destroy the sensation of pain, and he had good reason to believe that his death was, in any case, imminent --- that part of it was not under his control. Therefore, it was a morally defensible act.

That's as well as I can reason it out.

God understands every detail of the situation, and will render a verdict so absolutely right that on the Last Day we will all be cheering and punching the air and saying, "God Almighty! Your mercy is triumphant and Your judgment is perfect."

[wagglebee]

Wonderful explanation!

[Psycho_Bunny]

First of all, Ryan was a historian – A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day and The Final Battle are widely respected, meticulously researched and exhaustively documented histories. Your apparent ignorance of that fact is strange.

Secondly, I was not directly equating the circumstances nor attempting to “win” an argument through comparison, but rather, using examples of known situations to probe the boundaries of your ethics beliefs. It’s called the dialectical process…common in things like “philosophy” and “comparative religious thought” and “law”.

I told you I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on the story, and that wasn’t a “trick” of debate. You obviously have a belief about suicide and assisted-suicide, but apparently you’re not capable of voicing your thoughts in an intelligent manner or your beliefs are based on “Because X Says So” and you don’t have any independent complex insight into your feelings on the subjects. Which makes me wonder why you bother posting on this forum.

[Melinda]

You know, I thought that way before I went through it myself. When you love someone so much and you see them in unspeakable suffering for weeks, and if you can assist in ending it at their request, I don’t think I’d feel bad about that, I’ve got to be honest.

[Psycho_Bunny]

OK. That makes sense.

Now how does it apply to the original situation of the discussion: if I have an inoperable brain tumor, I am going to die and I’m in a constant, intolerable state of pain, how many days before my death is it “ok” for me to kill myself without “sinning”?

When can someone put poison in my I.V. at my beckoning and not be a murderer?

Or is it always wrong, in the case of a terminal disease? Even 30-seconds before your natural death?

[wagglebee]

First of all, Ryan was a historian – A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day and The Final Battle are widely respected, meticulously researched and exhaustively documented histories. Your apparent ignorance of that fact is strange.

You are correct, it is an historical piece; nevertheless, I never questioned the validity or the morality of what was done.

Secondly, I was not directly equating the circumstances nor attempting to “win” an argument through comparison, but rather, using examples of known situations to probe the boundaries of your ethics beliefs. It’s called the dialectical process…common in things like “philosophy” and “comparative religious thought” and “law”.

My pro-life views are well established on this forum. But for the record, I am 100% opposed to euthanasia in any form.

I told you I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on the story, and that wasn’t a “trick” of debate. You obviously have a belief about suicide and assisted-suicide, but apparently you’re not capable of voicing your thoughts in an intelligent manner or your beliefs are based on “Because X Says So” and you don’t have any independent complex insight into your feelings on the subjects. Which makes me wonder why you bother posting on this forum.

Again, I believe it is morally wrong, I do not subscribe to any form of "moral relativism" or whatever else you seem to advocate. When discussing very simple matters of morality ("Thou shalt not kill"), it is unnecessary to get into any "complex insight" or whatever other nuanced philosophies you want to use to confuse the situation.

And no, this is not a "debate," Free Republic is a conservative, pro-life forum, for you or any of your ilk to suggest that we should be "open" to your pro-death agenda is insulting. Perhaps the real question is why YOU are on this forum.

[Melinda]

I wonder if “pain” comes in different forms, not just the physical ouch that we understand as relatively healthy but the all body-encompassing kind that comes when all systems shut down and only bloody bile is left to come out of a catheter for days. She had much more morphine than would kill a horse at that point, but the body keeps getting used to the amount, and needs more. There is always a break-through of the pain med before any doctor will increase the amount, I think that's a legal requirement, not sure. Being at home, it would sometimes be hours before the increased med could be given. In the meantime, it was torturous beyond belief. Every case is different, I know. My Mom's was just horrifying.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Like I said before, intention is important in moral judgments. This issue comes up every single time in terminal pain management cases, and has to be calculated anew every single time.

• Not enough meds = intolerable pain.

• Just enough meds A = awake-alert-manageable level of discomfort.

• Just enought meds B = sleep/unconsciousness/coma (Sometimes if the patient has control of his own meds, i.e. with a calibrated liquid morphine self-injection system, they can choose between "Option A" and "Option B" on a back-and-forth basis, depending on whether they want to be awake and alert enough to communicate with family and friends, or whether for the next 24 hours they'd rather just be out of it.)

• Too much meds = Euthanasia by terminal sedation.

What you want is "just enough meds" options 2 and 3. The line between one category and another might just be the difference between a couple of cc's of morphine or whatever you're using. You have to calibrate it to the best of your ability, each and every time.

That's as much as anybody can possibly do.