Questions on life and death

People keep talking about last month's broadcast by "60 Minutes" of a videotape that shows Jack Kevorkian murdering a man who had Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS).

After watching the segment a second time, I have some questions for those in the video:

* Kevorkian on what he did: "It doesn't bother me what you call it." So can we all call it murder instead of mincing around with such Orwellian double-speak as "mercy killing" or "ending the suffering of a man"?

* Mike Wallace, the reporter of the segment, on the murder victim: "He had trouble breathing and swallowing, and was afraid of choking on his own saliva." Added Kevorkian: "He was terribly afraid of choking to death." But if the man's intention was to die, what was he "terribly afraid" of? Dying?

* Kevorkian on the murder victim: He spoke "barely intelligible words" and "couldn't sputter more than a few syllables at a time." If that qualifies one for being murdered, should every two-year-old hire 'round-the-clock bodyguards?

* Kevorkian, reading the permission he wanted the victim to sign: "After prolonged and thorough deliberation...." This "prolonged deliberation" lasted less than 24 hours. How long does it take most people to decide what to pack for lunch tomorrow?

* Wallace on the family of the murder victim: "They left him alone." Is this a wonderful testimony to familial affection and loyalty? Why did they all flee the scene of the crime and let their loved one die with only Dr. Death nearby? And why did they need Kevorkian to do the deed for them in the first place? Couldn't one of the victim's brothers have tied a plastic bag around the man's head? After all, he didn't have any muscle power to resist.

* Wallace on what Kevorkian did: "A political, medical, macabre publicity venture." Why didn't the newsman choose the words "moral" and "ethical"? Would it have anything to do with Wallace's later admission that he would want the same treatment, and therefore sees nothing immoral or unethical about it?

* The victim's brother: "We didn't have any options." How hard did he and the other family members look for them?

* The victim's wife: "He was very private. It's a private issue." Is that why she consented to let Kevorkian videotape her husband's death and show it on "60 Minutes"? Is that why she appeared on the show herself?

* Kevorkian on those who worry about mercy killing: "Everything can be abused. You punish the abuser." Is that very good advice for his jury?

To return to the method of the man's death, I've always wondered how many people would find euthanasia appealing if there were no such thing as lethal injection. What if they knew Kevorkian was going to put a shotgun to their loved one's brain and pull the trigger?

Two final questions:

1. How come Kevorkian, who injected his victim with three medications to stop his breathing and his heart, kept caps on the needles to make sure they were sterile? Was he afraid he might make his victim sick as well as dead?

2. Tolerating lynchings, gas chambers, concentration camps and abortion has made the 20th century one of the deadliest times in history. Do we really want to enter a new millennium led by the likes of Kevorkian?

(12-10-98)