Not to suffer is the right of a human being
Dr Jack Kevorkian Source: AAP-EPA-Carlos Osorio
Celebrating 40 years of SBS Armenian program. This week we bring you an interview broadcast September 24, 1997 with Dr Jack Kevorkian. The interview was the result of almost a year of negotiations through intermediaries. He felt besieged and in danger. The interview gives insight on why Dr Jack Kevorkian championed euthanasia.
Dr. Kevorkian, welcome to SBS Radio Armenian program.
Thank you. It's good to be here.
Dr. Kevorkian, when I was, searching the internet about euthanasia, there were literally hundreds of articles, news items, opinions about the subject. What's so fascinating about that, that, uh, arouses so much passion?
Well, I suppose it's, uh, the idea of euthanasia runs counter to the Western idea of death, which is supposed to be a terrible thing, a taboo subject. And, uh, the idea of people welcoming death to alleviate their suffering runs counter to the Western tradition. Western idea of the, uh... not only Western, the civilized idea of death as a taboo, as a terrible thing, uh, is, uh, absolutely contrary to a natural order because death is a part of all natural life.
Dr. Kevorkian, uh, you are doing pioneering work. No one ever has gone as far as you have in doctor-assisted suicide. Uh, when you first started in early nineteen nineties, did you know you were opening a Pandora's box?
Well, actually, I'm not doing the pioneering work. You, you should give credit to the doctors in the Netherlands, the Dutch doctors. They're the ones that are doing the pioneering work because it-- even though it's technically illegal, it's against the law there, they have been doing it for a couple of decades, and they do thousands of cases a year. So they're the ones who did the pioneering work. I, I am not fascinated with it. I'm- I was interested in it because of a case here in the United States in nineteen eighty-nine of a man who broke his neck in a swimming accident in California, uh, when he was, I think, nineteen. And seventeen years later, he- there he was lying there with a unable to move from the neck down with a tube in his throat for breathing, and he asked a doctor to come forward to help him to end that existence, which was su- he was suffering immensely. And when I heard that he asked for a doctor to come forward, I went forward because I realized that this man needed help. Uh, that's when I started this work.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, uh, could you talk a little bit about yourself, your background?
I was born and raised in, uh, Pontiac, uh, near Detroit, in the United States. My parents, both from the, uh, from, um, what's now Turkey. My mother came from, uh, near Sivas, um, and my father from near Erzurum.
Uh, my mother, uh, came after the World War I. She went through, she went through the, uh, genocide. My father came just before World War I. I, I went to the university in Michigan here and, uh, graduated in medicine and became a pathologist.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, you must be worried about, uh, Northern Territory's attempt to legalize eu- euthanasia. What do you think about, uh, you know, Australian Federal Parliament's decision to overturn, uh, Territory's legislation?
Well, that's part of the insanity of our society. Uh, the authorities, you see, in the United States are the same in Canada, in England, and in Australia. The authorities and the parliaments and legislators, uh, have a different agenda. The public is overwhelmingly in support of this right or this, uh, option. The authorities oppose it, primarily for money reasons and religious reasons, both of which are, are not justifiable. Uh, money, because doctors and nursing homes and hospitals are going to lose, and pharmaceutical companies are gonna lose billions of dollars. Many people are gonna have to change their jobs. Uh, and, and religious reasons because they have the insane idea that, that, uh, this is a religious issue when it's a medical issue. Um, uh, be- because of those two reasons, there's great opposition, and, uh, and, uh, both are unjustifiable.
Dr. Kevorkian, are you in, uh, contact with Australian doctors who advocate euthanasia?
Oh, no, but I, I read about Dr. Nitschke, and I think what he's doing is, uh, terrific. I think the man has great courage, and he's a real physician. And, uh, I think- I don't think he should stop because I don't think he can ever get convicted. That's why we have freedom to act in this state, because I've been tried three or four, four or five times, and the people will not convict because they realize this is not a crime. It can never be a crime in a civilized society, and it's an option the people do not want to lose. And it's another freedom they're trying to take away from people, and, uh, it'll, it'll never happen. So Dr. Nitschke should n- Nitschke should never fear prosecution because he can never be convicted, and I don't think he should stop even if the law says it's illegal. He should go on and do it anyway.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, how many, uh, murder charges were brought against you, and how many were dropped?
Well, I don't remember how many, but I... four or five, I think. There- one was a murder charge, then there was, uh, charges of assisted suicide, and now they have a charge, a bogus charge, completely made up on a common law, which the Supreme Court in Michigan made up in nineteen ninety-four, uh, uh, common law crime, which never existed. That's how corrupt the courts are here. They are so desperate to stop this because of the s- two reasons of money and religion. They are so desperate to stop this that they've, they've done such insane things, that they've destroyed the credibility of the courts and of the, of laws in, in this area, in this state.
Dr. Kevorkian, if, uh, a terminally ill, you know, patient in severe pain comes to you, how do you decide if it's, uh, sort of the right patient for euthanasia?
Well, in many cases, it's not very difficult because you see the person paralyzed. You see the, you see the effects of the, of the terrible disease, cancer, eating away at the body. You see this. But we always, uh, always check medical records to make sure the patient has had adequate medical diagnosis and even some attempts at treatment. Uh, that's enough to justify it. In some cases, it's difficult because there's no anatomic con... uh, reason for the pain the patient is suffering.... In those cases, we, we, uh, try to prolong the patient's, uh, existence long enough so that, uh, we can be sure that the- it is a, a terrible, uh, pain, the patient, and that it's not, uh, something, uh, due to some momentary depression or, uh, something like that. We got to be sure. In some cases, I've followed patients for three to four years before I've helped them.
Dr. Kevorkian, if, uh, there is improvement in palliative care, medical staff are, you know, better trained and hospitals better equipped in dealing with the dying, do you think there will still be need for euthanasia?
Oh, yes, because first of all, five to-- any, any, uh, honest doctor, uh, specialist will admit five to ten percent of pain, cases of severe pain cannot be controlled by drugs. You can do it by putting the patient into a coma or semi-coma, but that, that changes the patient's existence, and the patients don't want that. So five to ten percent can't be controlled, even with all the means we have today, and I can, I can attest to that from my own, my own experience, too. But that's been proven statistically. And it isn't just a matter of pain, it's a matter of quality of life. If a person is paralyzed, that's, that's a quality of life. It's not a matter of pain. If a person wants to live forty years paralyzed, that's fine. But if a person decides, "I do not want to live forty years paralyzed," that's fine, too. It's a patient's decision, and in some cases, it's difficult medically to justify it, and, uh, it will take consultation among several specialists, probably. But it's got to be done on a cooperative basis, not with antagonism and not with bias. You must do what's best for the patient, even if it aggrieves or hurts the doctor's feelings, because the doctor's feelings are not as important as the patient's feelings, and doctors forget that.
Dr. Kevorkian, if euthanasia is legalized, do you think the changes of abuse are possible?
You see, this is, this is a problem. I don't think any change is necessary. Overwhelming support of the public. In this state, it's eighty percent, eighty-five percent of the people support it. There's no need, there's no need for change, and the idea of legalizing it is absurd. It's a natural inborn, uh, I hate to call it a right, not to suffer. You don't need to legalize that. That's common sense, and legislation is absolutely unnecessary here. You don't need a law to allow a basic right. You don't need it. You don't need that. Not to suffer is a right of a human being, and anybody with sense would admit that. But if your mind is made, mmm, is made crazy by religious doctrine, then you can't believe that. Then you believe that it's, it's not a right not to suffer. Then you believe that you must suffer because of some myth that's been invented, which is silly.
And Dr. Kevorkian, do you feel, uh, your life is in danger? I think, uh, last week you were granted a permission to carry a gun for self-protection.
Well, there was an episode, I don't know if it was a year ago or so, of a, of a man who was found, uh, there waiting outside the attorney's office with a, with a gun. It was unloaded, but he had, uh, he had bullets in the car, and he was prosecuted and put on probation. But, uh, there's no doubt that, uh, a doctor's life, when he deals with medical problems that have been made religious problems by religious fanatics such as abortion and euthanasia, that doctor's life in the United States is in danger because they have already murdered several doctors here who, who work at abortion clinics. Religious fanaticism is unpredictable, and, uh, you've always got to be aware of that. So on these t-- uh, any issue that's made religious would make, uh, anybody working in, on that issue vulnerable to religious, uh, religious crime.
Dr. Kevorkian, your opponents are people who advocate life, so how can they justify the taking of life?
Because, because religion has made them crazy. They don't realize it. You see, they are crazy in a secular sense. They, th- they, they believe they're doing work, uh, God's work, divine work. All this is made up. It's myth- mytho- mythological. Every religion is mythological. There's no basis for it. It's not reality. It's made up! And, and you call the human body divine, uh, the, uh, uh, sacred. Now, medical school, we didn't study sanctity. Uh, we-- no one told me in medical school that the human body is sacred. The human body is a biological entity, and if you make it, uh, you call it sacred, that's all made up. It's mythological. And, a- and what is sanctity anyway? That varies, uh, but in definition... Uh, you ask many people, and the definition will vary. And you cloud the issue by, by, with these silly things. Medicine is ha- is somewhat scientific. M- The idea of sanctity has no business in medicine. That's religious, not medical.
Dr. Kevorkian, why they call you Dr. Death?
Well, they call me... Uh, they probably call me that to disparage me, to insult me. I mean, uh, I accept that. I mean, I, I know what they're doing, and I don't mind because the idea of death is not negative. It's a part of life. Everybody's going to die. Why do you, why do you make fun of or disparage what's going to happen to you? That makes no sense at all. But of course, they can't think that way because their mind is clouded by religious dogma. The death to them has become a terrible thing to a religious person. See? It's an enemy.... the, you know, the religion says, uh, it, you will conquer death, you know? This resurrection has conquered death. So death is an enemy to be conquered instead of a part of nature to be accepted.
Uh, do you think the media portrayed you fairly?
No. Media is very hypocritical and very meretricious. It is, uh, it is, uh, it, it, it, it is probably the, the instrument of much social upheaval and chaos in this, in this society. It is a very hypocritical thing, media. No, the media is not to be believed and not to-- I have no trust or faith in the media at all.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, besides, uh, medicine, I think you have other interests, too, painting and music?
Oh, yes. Uh, my, my greatest interest is in music, but I, I dabble. I'm an amateur at both of them. I'm an amateur.
Mm.
I mean, uh, I don't call myself a painter or an artist. Uh, my paintings are really nothing but, uh, they're philosoph- they're philosophy in, in paint, is all they are. They're painted social and political cartoons, is what they are. They're not art in the sense of, of true art.
Uh, could you talk about your work titled Genocide?
Well, that, that, that one just, uh, tries to depict, uh, I tried to depict in a very forceful way what a genocide is. When people, uh, recoil, so-called, uh, you know, uh, ostensibly sensible, uh, sensitive people recoil from my paintings, I don't know if that's a genuine reaction or just put on. I want people to recoil from my paintings because, uh, I paint things that are not very pleasant, but they're a part of life. Genocide is happening today. It's, it's happened in the past and will happen in the future, and I want people to realize just what they're dealing with, with genocide, and you can't ma- you can't make that a pleasant painting. It's impossible. So I tried to make it forceful and stark in a simple way, not with a bunch of, uh, dead bodies or... I, I wanted to make it simple, and I think, I think I had succeeded with, uh, with that depiction of, uh, of what I think is a terrible crime.
Mm, it was very symbolic. Uh, is it true you used your own blood
to paint it?
Yeah, I used my own blood to paint the frame. I mean, now, most people, so many people would think, well, as the media tried to, uh, say, "Well, now, that's grotesque." Why is that grotesque? I mean, it didn't take much blood. Uh, when I first did it, uh, years ago, I first did a painting like this, I used some blood that was in the blood bank that they were gonna throw away. It had been outdated, and I says, "Well, instead of throwing it away, let me use it to some purpose." And so I painted, I painted this with my own blood, uh, which I thought was rather suitable because my, my father's whole family was wiped out in a genocide in Turkey, and my mother lost most of her family over there. My father lost everybody. He didn't have a living relative, not a cousin, not a distant cousin, nothing. And so I thought it'd be symbolic that with my own blood, I would paint the frame, uh, of, uh, of this, uh, paint, uh, of this painting as a, as a nothing else but a symbolic memorial to the memory of, uh, my family that died and all those others. I thought it was rather suitable. I, I didn't do it to be bizarre or grotesque, and I don't think it is grotesque.
Dr. Kevorkian, you released, uh, also a CD. Did you play the instruments?
I played, I played flute on some of that instru- music, yes. I'm an amateur flutist, too.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, I think, uh, in your book, uh, Prescription: Medicine, the Goodness of Plant Death, you mentioned about, you know, that in Armenian Cilicia, doctors performed medical experiments on condemned criminals. What was the experiment about?
Well, from what I read in these brief reports that were reported in the Soviet Armenian journals in, uh, in, uh, oh, about, uh, thirty to forty, fifty years ago, uh, they were quoting, uh, Armenian publications of the Middle Ages, in which, um, condemned criminals were allowed to undergo experiments. And the doctors did ig- men- observations of, on the blood circulation and, uh, various organs of the body, uh, during life, how they functioned. It would be interesting to me, and I think to any real medical scientist, to go back and find out exactly what they observed because, uh, they might have, uh, observed things that we give credit to other later scientists for that, that, uh, just go unnoticed, buried in the archives of the Armenian, uh, Madir Taran (Matenadaran). They did observe functioning of the circulation in a living human being. I think what they did... I couldn't get details of how they did it, but I'm sure they used anesthesia of some kind. If nothing else, they probably used great degi- great deal of alcohol to make the person, uh, unconscious or very close to unconscious. It's similar to what the, was reported, uh, that the Alexandrians did in three hundred BC. There, the, uh, condemned pe- condemned men were allowed to, uh, be experimented on in, uh, anatomical laboratories when they were executed, and, uh, that was reported by Roman historians several centuries later. But the Armenian experience is the only one directly recorded at the time, and, uh, I was proud to, to know that, and I was very happy to learn it. Uh, I learned it from an Armenian newspaper here. I would like very much someday to go over there and, and, uh, see and read what, uh, what they observed in these living human bodies.
Uh, Dr. Kevorkian, one last question. How would you like to be remembered?
It doesn't bother me very much. I... Uh, it, it, when one is dead, it doesn't matter how he's remembered. In this world of corruption and, uh, destruction and death and, uh, dishonesty, and, uh... I know there's a lot of good in the world, too, but there's much not good, and, uh, especially the Armenian history proves that. And it really doesn't matter what the wor- what a world like that says of you when you're dead.
Dr. Kevorkian, thanks very much for the interview. Wish you good health and, uh, good luck in your work.
