Taking Credit for Kevorkian’s Ideas: Prisoners and Organ Harvesting

bioethics, Kevorkian, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

Greg Dahlmann, at blog.bioethics.net, alerts readers to Graeme Wood’s article arguing that we should permit (in Dahlmann’s words) “death row prisoners to, essentially, die by organ donation.”

Wood’s article is titled “Let’s Harvest the Organs of Death-Row Inmates“:

But by using what the bioethicist Arthur Caplan calls “the Mayan Protocol”—a term derived from the ancient Mayan practice of vivisecting their human sacrifices—the removal of organs would itself be the method of execution. If this sounds inhumane, compare it to current practices: botched hangings, painfully long gassings, and messy electrocutions. Removal of the heart, lungs, and kidneys (under anesthesia, of course) would kill every time, without an instant of pain.

So far, the organs of all criminals executed in the United States have stayed with their original owners. Consider the loss. Someone died waiting for that killer’s heart. Two died waiting for his kidneys, and two more suffocated for lack of his lungs. The liver, split two ways, could have saved two babies. Take the hair, bone, skin, ligaments, and fluids for grafts and transfusions, and all that’s left of the donor’s body could be shuffled off into a very petite coffin indeed. The inmate could allow nearly a dozen people to live, in exchange for a body he wouldn’t be around to enjoy anyway. The math says we should encourage death-row organ donation.

Apparently, neither Dahlmann nor Wood are aware that Wood is parroting the arguments and advocacy of Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian carried on a “crusade” to allow just this sort of access to condemned prisoners for almost three decades. Admittedly, his crusade wasn’t limited to organ harvesting, but embraced live human experimentation as well.

All anyone needs to do to confirm this is to check the Amazon listing for Kevorkian’s “Prescription: Medicide,” published in 1991:

(From the 1991 Publishers Weekly review on the Amazon page linked above)

Kevorkian gained notoriety last year when he performed the first publicly acknowledged “physician-assisted suicide” by helping Janet Adkins, a victim of
Alzheimer’s disease, take her own life. The method of death was the Mercitron, the “suicide machine” Kevorkian invented, which enables a person to self-administer a lethal injection. In this self-dramatizing, often strident manifesto he argues that “medicide,” his term for doctor-assisted suicide, is an ethical option that should be extended not only to the infirm or terminally ill, but also to inmates on death row. Condemned prisoners, he maintains, should, if they choose, be executed via general anesthesia, with the option of donating organs or having their intact bodies used for medical experimentation. (emphasis added)

Wood, writing on this subject, should know enough to give credit where credit is due. His arguments and advocacy are near-perfect echoes of Kevorkian’s own ultimately discredited cause. And ethicists like Dahlmann should already be familiar with Kevorkian’s work. –Stephen Drake

Peter Singer – A Slippery Mind

medical decisionmaking, Our News & Commentary Blog, Peter Singer, reality check

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has put himself into the media spotlight again. This time, he’s gone to defend the idea that professional judgment and state interests can trump individual autonomy. The “case example” he uses in his latest op-ed is the highly publicized case of Sam Golubchuk, an elderly man whose family has been fighting in the Canadian courts to guarantee he gets appropriate medical treatment when he falls ill.

Writing in the Malta Independent, Singer shows (probably to the shock of many of his fans) how little Utilitarians like Singer actually value autonomy:

Normally, when patients are unable to make decisions about their treatment, the family’s wishes should be given great weight. But a family’s wishes should not override doctors’ ethical responsibilities to act in the best interests of their patients.

Golubchuk’s children argue that he interacts with them. But establishing their father’s awareness could be a double-edged sword, since it could also mean that keeping him alive is pointless torture, and it is in his best interest to be allowed to die peacefully.

The other important issue raised by Golubchuk’s case is how far a publicly-funded health care system, such as Canada’s, has to go to satisfy the family’s wishes. When a family seeks treatment that, in the professional judgment of the physicians, is not in the patient’s best interest, the answer should be: not far at all.

If Golubchuk’s children can convince the court that their father is not suffering, the court might reasonably order the hospital to grant them custody of their father. They can then decide for themselves, at their own expense, how much more treatment he should have. What the court should not do, is order the hospital to continue to care for Golubchuk against the better judgment of its health care professionals. Canada’s tax-payers are not required to support the religious beliefs held by their fellow-citizens.

This puts him in direct contradiction to his stance in an earlier case. However, his apparent aim in the documentary was to show a more varied and humane presentation of his views. Here is an excerpt from a transcription of the documentary “Singer: A Dangerous Mind.” The transcribed segment deals with David Glass, whose parents were convicted on assault charges as a result of having to physically fight medical personnel attempting to give their son drugs that would have killed him:

And what I thought was really wrong about the doctors’ refusal to support David, when he needed life support, was that they were putting themselves above David’s mother in being the judges of whether his life was worth continuing.

He reinforced the point later when he said:

I think for doctors to make those decisions independently of the wishes and views of parents will normally be the wrong thing to do.

Contrary to what both detractors and fans of Singer might think, it’s not all that unusual for Singer to say one thing in a given setting only to modify it or contradict it in another. Most people don’t keep track of the times he’ll concede points in a debate, only to “forget” that he conceded them when in front of another audience. Singer seems to rely on the fact that most people don’t keep track of his contradictions and inconsistencies.

This pattern became evident even as he first came to Princeton. And it came with his conflicting accounts of a situation he faced with his own mother. In 1999, Michael Specter wrote in the New Yorker that Peter Singer spent money to support his mother, who had advanced Alzheimer’s – and the apparent contradiction of him providing that care in the face of Singer’s views on personhood.

Singer’s comments, which became widely circulated in subsequent coverage of him, explained the contradiction this way:

Singer has spent his career trying to lay down rules for human behavior which are divorced from emotion and intuition. His is a world that makes no provision for private aides to look after addled, dying old women. Yet he can’t help himself. “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult,” he said quietly. “Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it’s your mother.” (emphasis added)

This was a “humanizing” portrait of Singer – although sometimes used to brand him a hypocrite as well.

Whether or not Singer is a hypocrite, it’s clear that he unpacks certain statements, revelations and positions at times that certainly seem aimed to please the audience in front of him. How else to explain the December 2000 interview with Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine that gave a very different account of why Peter Singer’s mother got the support she needed to live even with advanced dementia:

Rigorous adherence to a single principle has a way of hoisting one by one’s own petard. Singer’s mother suffers from severe Alzheimer’s disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today. (emphasis added)

(Note: Singer’s sister is Joan Dwyer, a lawyer whose career has involved strident advocacy for people with significant disabilities, some of which she writes about in the Law Review article “Access to Justice for People with Severe Communication Impairment.”

The statements in the Bailey interview did not get circulated in the media – and the earlier story of it “being different when it’s your mother” still plays out in most people’s background knowledge of Singer.

But if you follow his articles and speaking gigs closely, it probably won’t be long until you’ll find your own examples of Singer blithely contradicting himself and hoping the audience has either the ignorance or the good manners not to notice. –Stephen Drake

NY Times Reporter Shills for Euthanasia Organizations

Jane E. Brody, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

New York Times “Health” reporter Jane E. Brody is no stranger to this blog.

Back in August, this blog took issue with her article promoting the so-called “non-heartbeating death” protocol in which organs may be harvested after the heart is stopped. Most articles covering this topic have attempted to discuss the ethical pitfalls in this protocol, pitfalls made all too apparent in the events surrounding the death of Ruben Navarro.

Here’s what an excerpt from the blog piece back in August:

The August 28th story by Jane E. Brody titled “The Solvable Problem of Organ Shortages,” falls short of real reporting and can best be described as a public relations piece for the NHBD protocol and the medical institutions implementing the protocol.

Today, Brody took up her public relations role again, shilling for “Compassion & Choices” and “Final Exit Network” – the latter organization makes no pretense of thinking suicide assistance should be limited to the terminally ill. They’re more than happy to encourage and abet the suicides of just about any old, ill or disabled person.

And that’s just fine with Brody, apparently.

Excerpts from her article titled “Terminal options for the irreversibly ill“:

One of the things that apparently moved Brody to write this PSA for euthanasia groups is a letter she received from a reader talking about her mother:

A 62-year-old woman wrote that her 90-year-old mother told her almost daily that she had “had enough”; she has had a good life but now no longer feels her life is worth living. She constantly asks her son-in-law, a physician, “Isn’t there something you can give me to help me get out of here already?”

“In this world of modern technology,” her daughter wrote, “where medical advances now provide the ability to keep individuals alive indefinitely, frequently without consideration for the quality of that life, I believe the time has come to address the issue of what you refer to as a ‘graceful exit.’

Brody appears untroubled by the fact that the letter and the lament come from the daughter and not the “suffering” person herself. And she treats every word as though it can be taken at face value. Maybe she could ask why the mother herself didn’t write or at least sign the letter – but that would mean entertaining the possiblity that the wishes expressed are those of the daughter’s alone.

After laying out the Oregon law and people’s options in terms of limiting life-sustaining treatment, Brody advances down her self-made slope to the advocacy of organizations like the Final Exit Network:

The network’s Exit Guide program accepts members with various incurable diseases that cause intolerable suffering. Members must be “cognitively functional,” “physically strong enough to perform the required tasks” and “able to procure” the needed items. Helium, when inhaled in place of oxygen, results in a loss of consciousness within a minute and heart stoppage in 15 minutes without causing the unpleasant sensation of air hunger, the authors reported.

She gives full contact information.

As to the degree of care and professionalism with which Final Exit Network zealots engage in their work, check out the this troubling account of the guided/assisted suicide of a troubled woman in the Phoenix New Times.

Brody and the NY Times have every right to publish public relations and opinion pieces; would it be too much to ask for them to move Ms. Brody to the opinion page where she belongs so no one will mistake this for reporting? –Stephen Drake

PS – Wesley Smith has his own take on it in “New Euthanasia Times.”

“Dying” Kevorkian to Run for Congress – Will Media Treat Him Like a Candidate or as a Sideshow?

Kevorkian, media coverage, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog

The following Associated Press story is making its way across the net and the news media outlets:

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian says he plans to run for Congress.

Kevorkian is on parole since his release from prison last year after serving the minimum of a term for second-degree murder in one man’s death.

He said he plans to run without party affiliation for the 9th District seat now held by Republican Joe Knollenberg, who is running for re-election, The Oakland Press reported Wednesday.

“We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington,” Kevorkian said. He said he would say more about his candidacy next week.

As cited above, the main source for the AP article is a longer one in the Oakland Press.

Kevorkian’s motivations are pretty transparent. After a brief flurry of media interest following his release from prison, he found it was hard to get media attention if he wasn’t actively building a body count. He had hopes of making it big on the speaking circuit, but word has gotten out that he pretty much sucks as a speaker – especially a speaker who demands a $50,000 speaking fee.

The media in Michigan has a pretty poor track record when it comes to Kevorkian. They’ve had a history of mischaracterizing his body count as people who were “dying,” for example. And every time there’s a study or article pointing out that the majority of people who died at his hands weren’t terminally ill, it becomes “news.”

So how will the press treat Kevorkian this time? Will this be treated as some sort of sideshow or will they ask them the kind of questions they might ask a real candidate?

What kind of questions? Well, since Kevorkian said the voters deserve “honesty and sincerity,” let’s start with his medical status. It’s reasonable for voters to ask if a candidate can be expected to live out his or her term of office.

Kevorkian has a problem here, as discussed in a previous blog entry:

Like the boy who cried “wolf,” Mayer Morganroth claimed – year after year – that Kevorkian had “less than a year to live” in his efforts to win an early release for his client.

This was laid out and confirmed in an Associated Press story that appeared on December 14th of last year (link is no longer operational):

Some object to Kevorkian’s upcoming release from prison
12/14/2006, 5:34 p.m. ET
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

(excerpt)
Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group based in Forest Park, Ill., also said it was disappointed that Kevorkian would be released in June.

“We won’t forget the struggling disabled people he preyed upon. And we won’t be silent,” the group said in a statement.

It added that it expected that the 78-year-old Kevorkian, after leaving prison, will show a “near-miraculous `recovery'” from his health problems, which include diabetes, hepatitis C, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries in his brain and vertigo, according to his attorney.

“We were suspicious his health problems were greatly exaggerated when his lawyer filed appeals for four years in a row claiming Kevorkian was essentially on the brink of death,” the group said.
***
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said all requests to have sentences commuted for health reasons must first go to the Corrections Department and then to the parole board, which recommends to the governor whether the request should be
honored.

Boyd said Morganroth already has made four such requests, in 2003, 2004, 2005 and earlier this year.”In each instance he indicated that Dr. Jack Kevorkian had less than a year to live,” she said.

It would seem more than reasonable to request Kevorkian to make his medical records public so the voters can be assured he’ll actually be able to live long enough to serve out his term.

Of course, if his medical records indicate that he is healthy enough to survive the term, then he has another problem:

Why did his lawyer apparently lie about his health status for several years?

One more thing Kevorkian should be challenged on. If he wants Michigan citizens to vote for him, reporters should ask him to reconcile his candidacy with the following statements at the University of Florida earlier this year:

Not all of Kevorkian points were met with support. He evoked a mixture of applause and boos when he spoke out against the voting system.

“Everyone should refuse to vote,” he said. “That’ll send the tyrant a message.”

Maybe some member of the press should ask if “everyone should refuse to vote” refers to Kevorkian as well.

Considering the softball – even pandering – treatment that the press has accorded Kevorkian so often, it’s a lot to hope for and maybe too much to actually expect. –Stephen Drake

Obama Disappoints with Simplistic Schiavo Comments

life-ending decisions, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, schiavo

(Note: None of the following should be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection of any candidate. NDY does not endorse candidates for public office.)

For those of you who missed it, the debate last night between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led to a jarring and unpleasant reminder of just how insignificantly our issues and advocacy are being treated by the candidates. The regrets expressed by Senator Obama regarding the Senate vote on Terri Schiavo show a lack of knowledge – or regard – for the more than twenty disability advocacy organizations that weighed in on this matter. Below is an excerpt, courtesy of the NY Times, (registration required) of the statement in question:

RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you’d like to take back?

***

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you’d like to take back?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.
It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.
And so that’s an example I think of where inaction…

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube…

OBAMA: That’s exactly right.

RUSSERT: … and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

This wasn’t the first time that Obama brought this up. He made the same points, briefly, in an earlier debate.

A large part of Senator Obama’s reputation and appeal is built on the notion that he can acknowledge, respect and understand opposing points of view. That may be true in other topic areas, but so far, he’s stuck to the traditional and partisan framing of the Schiavo tragedy as one that is solely about the “decisionmaking process of the families.”

For obvious reasons, Senator Obama omitted mention of a major player in the Senate bill and vote over Schiavo – Senator Tom Harkin. Here are some conveniently forgotten statements from Senator Harkin regarding the bill that Senator Obama now regrets:

“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.

“Over the last week, I have been working hard, and in good faith with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and others to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of this case. On Thursday, we came up with a bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.

“Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership refused to take up the bill before sending members home for a two week vacation. We are now giving the House another chance to pass this bipartisan bill.

“Congressional action in this area should be based on respect for the wishes and dignity of those who are incapacitated. I do not believe there was a need for this to be dragged out in the media yesterday, today and now into the weekend. The House now has another opportunity to act and I hope they will.

“I would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case. I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts.”
# # #

As it turns out, there was no exploration of the underlying issues affecting people in similar situations, thanks to the combined efforts of figures on both the left and the right to portray this as a “culture wars” clash, erasing disability advocates and even Tom Harkin from the media and the public consciousness.

We hope that in the future, Senator Obama will at least acknowledge that there are other dimensions to the Schiavo case than the simple partisan framing he has settled on. Many of us in the disability community who fought long and hard in that battle only to be treated as insignificant to the debate carry a bitter taste in our mouths.

For a start, Senator Obama might want to read – or reread – a classic text written by a former professor of his. Making All the Difference – inclusion, exclusion and American Law by Martha Minow is a text that tears apart the simple assumptions that issues such as competence and guardianship are simple ones.

It’s a good bet that large numbers of people in the disability community will be voting for the Democratic candidate in the coming presidential election. But, as Peggy Noonan has put it several times, the candidate who wins may be the one who has the greatest number of supporters willing to crawl over broken glass to vote for him or her.

Just about every disability advocate I know feels that way about Tom Harkin – the greatest ally the disability rights community has in Congress – and would act accordingly if he was running for a national office. Senator Obama might want to think about the cost of dampening enthusiasm in the disability community.

Considering the hit and miss reality of polling accessibility, we need all the enthusiasm we can muster. –Stephen Drake