Jack Kevorkian, AKA Dr. Death, has a celebrity in his fan club, "View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg.
Discussing the notorious suicide assisting doctor’s run for Congress on the March 25 edition, 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." Joy Behar wondered: "Why is he a bad guy? I don’t understand it...it’s over my head somewhere." [Audio available here.]
Elisabeth Hasselbeck expressed concern about a "gray area" and "lines blurring," if for example the one responsible for a suffering person’s care has financial motives for that person’s death. Sherri Shepherd, besides a few jokes, did not contribute much to the conversation. Transcript follows:
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Here’s something that I think is kind of interesting. Jack Kevorkian, you know Dr. Death, is running for congress in Michigan.
SHERRI SHEPHERD: Don’t let him near McCain.
[laughter]
JOY BEHAR: Woah!
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Sherri, that’s not, that’s not nice Sherri.
BEHAR: That was a good one, but a bad one.
HASSELBECK: [playfully] You take that back Sherri.
BEHAR: That was a bad one, but a good one.
SHEPHERD: It was bad. I’m sorry.
BEHAR: No, you know what? It’s a good thing. It’s a good thing he’s running because finally a politician with an exit strategy.
[laughter]
SHEPHERD: There you go girl! You can’t stop it.
BEHAR: I mean, the guy-
HASSELBECK: You guys can’t control yourselves can you?
BEHAR: The thing about Kevorkian is that I don’t consider him a bad guy. He helped a guy who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, take himself out of this world because the guy was in excruciating terror. So why is he a bad guy? I don’t understand it. Maybe I’m, it’s over my head somewhere.
GOLDBERG: Because 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. It should be available to them with counseling like a lot of other things. And I’m a big fan of Jack’s because he believed that he could help people who were in, in a place where no one was helping them. And where, where it was too much.
HASSELBECK: But the lines get blurry.
GOLDBERG: It can. It can.
HASSELBECK: The lines get blurry if you’re dealing with someone who’s life is almost in control, in someone else’s hands. You know, there are a lot of things. There are a lot of gray areas in that whole conversation.
BEHAR: But it’s hard to kill yourself. It’s very- it’s not easy to kill yourself.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, it’s very hard. It’s very hard.
BEHAR: So, I mean-
SHEPHERD: Those congresspeople better not go to sleep.
HASSELBECK: Sometimes people who say if someone is almost on their way out, in too much pain, can’t control their words and thoughts. And if they have handed over their care to somebody else, and that person say has a vested interest in their financials, you don’t know. There can be a gray area.
GOLDBERG: Pretty much, you know, you have to have certain things in order to follow through with this.
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"I don’t understand it...it’s over my head somewhere."
March 25, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Prester JohnA frickin' game of Tic-Tac-Toe would be over Behar's head.
Not one of the ignorant
March 25, 2008 - 15:19 ET by NL207Not one of these ignorant women can fathom the notion that euthanasia might actually be murder in the eyes of God or that Doctor assisted suicide is just a form of euthanasia.
Kevork the Dork
March 25, 2008 - 15:22 ET by exLibhere's a guy that has no business in any job that involves having influence and Whoopi doesn't get it?
I heard this guy on the radio this morning, they were playing a snippet of his "stump speech"
According the "great" Kevorkian you can't call the Iraq War a war. Because this guy has his own definition for everything. He says in order to call it a war, you have to have equal resources. He says, all our opposition has to defend themselves is to strap bombs on themselves, the poor people.
I guess Kevork has no problem helping weak willed people surrender to death but can't figure out that if you are a people involved in a war with a stronger opponent you surrender.
It's sad that this is what
March 25, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Chris NormanIt's sad that this is what passes for info-tainment. They could tape a high school lunch table and come up with more intelligence, insight, and wit than this.
I'm sure this will infuriate everyone
March 25, 2008 - 15:45 ET by sarcasmoBut some folks believe that assisted suicide is a religious freedom and body ownership issue that's not so black & white...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
we agree Sarc
March 25, 2008 - 16:45 ET by candanceI don't have any problem with assisted suicide on its surface - if people want to do it, they will find a way regardless, and it really isn't our job to stop them.
But I worry about doctors pressuring people into it, family members with a hidden agenda, patients who can't speak for themselves being steamrolled, etc. You can say "we can monitor people just fine"...yeah we sure did a bang up job of saving Terri Shiavo...
Once abortion was opened up as "an option" Planned Parenthood began pressuring teen girls into doing it and even lying on their applications. When marijuana became accepted as "an option" for glaucoma, Montel Williams started bragging about how he smoked pot to help his MS (which anyone who has MS will tell you is bogus). The point is, things like this are dangerous to get into.
and what happens
March 25, 2008 - 17:32 ET by UndercoverConservativewith "universal", government funded health care? When it becomes "for the good of the children" to deny services to certain ethnic and racial backgrounds because they're "overrepresented" and to "save money"? What about when Libs want to "balance the budget" and that means the best thing "for everyone" is to pull the plug on people who are under State funded care? What defines "terminally" ill? less than a year left? two? ten? Let's start talking euthanasia for AIDS sufferers, since they'll "never" recover, or cancer sufferers who have less than a decade to go. What about organ failure? Those folks are "terminally ill" and have a very short lifetime....if they don't get the organ. Plus there's all that "life support" like antirejection drugs....
Once you make it "legal" to start killing people, you can't just stop-especially when you're also going to make it mandatory for that same legal system to pay for their care.
And as for "choosing" to die, how many do so not out of their own pain, but out of the pain they cause others? Wishing to die to make it easier on their families? That's a form of coercion whether it's intentional or not. What about the societal cost of just staying alive? You think most young girls have abortions because they just want to? They know a child interrupts their career plans, their education, etc-things that are "necessary" ONLY because of societal pressures, or societal coercion. Most of the same societal reasons a woman would choose abortion can be applied directly to making someone "choose" death.
From a Darwinian aspect, this is terrible. People with consciences, with honor, with compassion for their fellow humans, would be the first to sacrifice themselves. The selfish, the power hungry, the stupid would never recognize obligation and remove themselves early from the gene pool.
Religious or atheistic, State-approved assisted suicide is a stupid, terrible thing. And someone trying to commit assisted suicide when it's STILL ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE is a murder.
But like when it's applied to immigration, View-ers and liberals don't quite understand the meaning of "illegal".
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
wow, lots to cover on these
March 26, 2008 - 07:03 ET by sarcasmoI never said the government should in any way be involved in health care, but that includes family/personal death decisions. The linked article doesn't really make it quite as clear as the real story from Mary, but I can assure you, Martie Ruwart was in constant, intense pain with no hope for recovery at the end when she turned to this admittedly-drastic solution. NOT helping her at that point would have been cruel, IMO.
The point I've tried to make is that the decision should not be in the hands of the state, but the family. I'm struck by the number of people who advocate control-freakery for others in this area. These same people, when questioned will often admit to a willingness to totally ignore & flout the very anti-suicide laws they so-strongly advocate for others, should a family member be in a medically hopeless situation featuring constant pain like Martie's. They blanch at the idea of a bureaucrat taking control in their own personal case, yet that's exactly what they advocate for others. Liberty, like love, is something you can never have until you're willing to give it away, and I forget who said that first.
The real problem with Kervorkian (note the quantity of name-calling instead of debate) is that he's a doctor who tells the truth about death. Many people -- especially in the government -- would prefer an implicitly-dishonest, winking doctor saying something like: "now, don't take 15 of these pills on an empty stomach with maybe a vodka-shot chaser, because that would probably kill you!" Honest people are upsetting when they insist on telling ugly truths like the one Jack has told, at considerable personal risk, about doctors & suicide. It's not like Kervorkian's any sort of a medical pioneer UNLESS the honesty-factor counts, so that must be what bothers people (and a biased, name-calling media) about him.
JMR
PS Candace, despite what appears to be a fantasy on some conservatives' part, pot's still not legal in the USA. Huge taxes & immense law enforcement resources still get used in direct contravention of the 9th & 10th amendments in California against medical pot patients. The problem with cannabis law failure hasn't ever been patients using what God created. The problem has always been government dishonesty, hysteria & corruption.
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Another informative update
March 25, 2008 - 15:51 ET by bigtimerAnother informative update of The View.
Please let us have one week without these gals.
I know my plea is useless...just thought I'd throw it in for the heck of it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Instead of loving those who
March 25, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Richard RomanoInstead of loving those who are in pain or suffering, let's kill them...that's the logic of Dr. Kervorkian and his ilk. Instead of soaring to new heights of devotion and care, let's murder...it's easier and people don't have to be a burden anymore. When will people finally acknowledge that the people who claim to be compassionate are actually the most cruel and cold. The left never ceases to amaze me.
While suicide may be ok for
March 25, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Dan The Man 2While suicide may be ok for some it is the chicken way out. My mom got teh news in January that she would most certainly die of inoperable brain cancer in 3 months or less. They could help her with some chemo and some radiation treatments but her life was not going to be extended appreciably. She could have tried to end it there because she was dead anyway, but she continued on fighting every second.
In taht time we talked and she closed her family affairs, but she did leave me with her screwed up estate and burial, but whats family for anyway.
The point is she lived and we should all live right up until the last possible second. I did let here die and we did not prolong her life on amchines when she fell into a coma. We let her die with dignity at my house.
So screw Kevorkian with his easy out. Life is never easy nor should it be. If it is then you may as well be dead.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan, My condolences, My
March 25, 2008 - 16:26 ET by SemperrightDan,
My condolences,
My grandmother died a few year back of the same thing. She was a fighter and would never dream of cashing out early.
It's the difference between the conservatives and the liberals
"When the going gets rough; quit" liberal motto
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
If libs are such fans of Dr.
March 25, 2008 - 16:29 ET by mattmIf libs are such fans of Dr. Death, maybe we could arrange for them to meet.
mattm,
March 25, 2008 - 16:33 ET by R D HelmLOL-Careful, I suggested something quite similar earlier, but Justin obliterated it.
I think his watching all these airings of the View are making him a little cranky. :-O
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Well, hey...THEY are the
March 25, 2008 - 16:50 ET by mattmWell, hey...THEY are the ones promoting the killing of babies and old people....but we damned well better not advocate using force against terrorists or criminals because that would be mean-spirited.
I'm sick of the Left-wing hypocrisy and incongruity regarding life and death. If we applied their own philosophy to themselves, they would cease to exist because they'd either be aborted or euthanized...so if that's a little harsh - they deserve it.
I don't know why the
March 25, 2008 - 16:35 ET by SemperrightI don't know why the liberals love him. They should fear him, with them being brain dead and all.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Euthanasia
March 25, 2008 - 16:45 ET by well99A person that is suffering from "terminal illness" should have the right to make that choice.It is better if it is doctor assisted so that it is done in a humane manner and gives the person a painless death.It should be "their" choice to make.Nobody else's.It has nothing to do with being weaked willed or the family not caring.It has to do with the person living every day with severe pain and wanting to put a end to that.The bottom line is they are the ones that should make the decision.
well99, don't you think
March 25, 2008 - 16:54 ET by motherbeltwell99, don't you think that some of those people, maybe not in such dire straits, would feel subtle pressure by society, and a feeling of guilt for using up the family's resources, and start feeling like they should "do the right thing" for everyone's sake?
How long before a "right to die" becomes an (implied) "duty to die"?
well said Motherbelt
March 25, 2008 - 17:03 ET by candanceWhen I was 12 I read about it in Lois Lowry's book The Giver where the elderly and disabled are humanely done away with so they won't be a burden on society. At the time I thought it was unbelievably cruel, but I can see America heading there within two or three generations.
It's one of the hallmarks of a society on the brink of moral collapse.
mb & cd,
March 25, 2008 - 17:22 ET by R D HelmI do not believe in doctor assisted suicide for any reason, but I am not sure I go along with artificially prolonging a life, particularly when doing so would put the survivors into near financial ruin. Having said that, let me ask you both this question, as I will probably be facing this situation in the not too distant future with both of my parents.
As I am sure you know, my dad is 80 and suffering from severe Alzheimer's. My mom is right behind him age-wise, and suffering from severe Type II diabetes.
At some point down the road, I may have to make a decision as to whether or not their lives are prolonged via artificial means. However, doing so beyond a certain point would be financially crippling for me and my two siblings.
I have had well-meaning Christian people tell me that we should do whatever it takes to keep them alive as long as possible. Only problem is, they aren't the one's footing the bill here.
What say you?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Tough call. Without
March 25, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Dan The Man 2Tough call. Without knowing a whole lot of your personal business it is near impossible. If it were me I would do as I would want my family to do to me. I wouldn't want to be an undue burdon on my wife or kids or siblings and realize there will come a point where they must give me up as going.
Alzhimers from what I understand is possibly the worst of teh two. If I did not know where I was then put me in a home. I would be ok there as much as if
I was with my kids. Not knowing from day to day who is who or where I am or even who I am.
Dunno about the diabetes.
My dad is 86 now with prostate cancer and bone cancer, both managed through drugs. He is managing to pay for the treatments needed through his SSI which is the only income he has. When he gets worse though I imagine he has ideas on what he wants to do. We have talked and he says he is ok and not to prolong his life more than needed, whatever that means.
So talk with your parents and see what they want, taht is if they are receptive to it. It sure helps knowing.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
RD Helm
March 25, 2008 - 21:26 ET by candanceTwo things:
1) I can't tell you what to do because that's between your parents and God. If they choose to allow themselves to fade in natural time, then let them do that. The only advice I can give is to let them make the decision - or at least try to weigh the decisions based on what they would want.
2) I believe in letting people die in the natural timing and way God intends. Now of course if common medicine or care can make us better then by all means I'm not stupid, but when we start going to extra-ordinary lengths to keep someone alive then maybe we're starting to interefere with God's will.
I know that this is a tough issue because my dad had a DNR when he passed away and some people in our church had their own ideas about it. Don't listen to *anyone* else...it's between you, your parents, and God. Pray about it and God will reveal His plan.
Wow, RD, that is tough. It
March 25, 2008 - 22:59 ET by motherbeltWow, RD, that is tough. It is sad that you have to deal with that.
Without going into details, we went through something similar with both my parents. After one resuscitation of my mother, she was comatose, we issued a DNR order from there forward. My father had his own.
Frankly, I wouldn't have any problem saying no to artificially prolonging a life where it's actually prolonging death. I don't know how else to say that; I hope it doesn't sound cruel. I guess if it were my parents, I would again, say DNR. When it happens, it happens. And that doesn't have anything to do with the bills. I don't believe there is any benefit to keeping someone alive "as long as possible" just becaue it is possible. There is a big difference between causing someone to die and allowing someone to die naturally.
People often say when we do that we are playing God. But aren't we playing God when we decide "this person shall not die" also?
Dan, cd & mb,
March 26, 2008 - 21:27 ET by R D HelmThank you for your input in this really difficult area.
I pray that when the time comes that I will choose wisely.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
MB
March 25, 2008 - 20:48 ET by well99There are all kinds of there could be this or that.What gives us the right to say to the person suffering.You have to live in constant pain.Even if they take medicine to ease it and it doesnt help.So they suffer thru without a break.Even sleep doesnt give them a escape.So what do we tell them it is okay for you to go thru it even if all they want is peace from it.Let them go thru it for years.I guess I dont see the compassion in that.As stated before it will all ways be thier choice.
I wasn't talking about
March 25, 2008 - 22:43 ET by motherbeltI wasn't talking about someone in constant pain, and suffering. I was talking about someone, if you recall, I said NOT in dire straits, feeling like they are old, and useless, and the kids could use the money couldn't they?
MB
March 26, 2008 - 01:04 ET by well99On that I agree.That is why I put a emphasis on terminal ill and suffering.Maybe it is a case that is to close to home so I have blinders on.To me family is always first no matter what.One thing we really need to do is clean up on medical costs.Tort reform and ways to bring the cost down on medical insurance without diminishing the patient care.
fear of dying
March 25, 2008 - 17:11 ET by gleefullyisayThe research shows people whom have a fear of dying is associated with the anticipation of pain, medicine has advanced such that their is no need for anyone to experience pain at end of life or at any time for that matter. Effective treatment is readily available. No need then for Dr. Death's Rx. I am in agreement with letting him loose in closed chambers with a few chosen libs. Their behavior suggest they are in considerable social and moral pain for which I believe Kerv is the onl answer to Rx what ails them. The first patient for him I'd chose is Ted Kennedy since he by his own actions does not value life. R.I.P Maryjo Kopechni.
glee... I'm not going to
March 25, 2008 - 17:20 ET by bigtimerglee... I'm not going to get into a back and forth with others on all of this, I respect each individual's opinions on this matter, as we all have most likely had different experiences with family members and friends...but as far as no one experiencing pain towards the end because of medical advancements...I have to strongly disagree.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
hehe..."Joy Behar
March 25, 2008 - 20:01 ET by RickTaLifehehe..."Joy Behar Wondered." I think that sentence precludes just about anything concerning that woman. She's like Anna Nicole Smith without the good looks......clueless.
Ms. Goldberg?..Ms. Whoppi
March 25, 2008 - 21:16 ET by ConservativeRexMs. Goldberg?..Ms. Whoppi Goldberg? Dr. Kevorkian will see you now.
The culture of death
March 26, 2008 - 14:39 ET by greenfairieNot surprising to see the very pro-abortion Goldberg supporting euthanasia. (But I'd bet she's not for the death penalty under any circumstances.)
The argument that euthanasia is there to just give folks who are dying anyway and in great suffering a little push across the river Styx is a lot like the snake oil pro-aborts pushed on the public decades ago. It would end birth defects so deformed/handicapped/retarded children wouldn't have to suffer a crappy life. Or poor mothers wouldn't have to force their children to suffer the crappy life of poverty. But it didn't quite turn out the way they sold it, did it?
It's one thing to deny treatment, which I think an adult has the right to decide for himself. It's hard to watch someone suffering with a long-term degenerative illness like Lou Gehrig's disease or Alzheimer's. We fear it happening to loved ones and to us.
But surely there's a better, more humane, and compassionate solution than to just call Dr. Kervorkian. Doctors are healers, not executioners. How long will it be when it's not someone who has lived a full life and in terrible pain, but someone who is depressed? Or someone who is still in good health but fears getting sick or showing sympthoms later on, i.e. someone who is HIV-positive? Or a family who finds it cheaper to send little Timmy up to heaven instead of scrounging up the money for his kidney transplant? Or parents who don't want to deal anymore with a child who has spinal bifida? A father in Canada murdered his disabled 12-year-old daughter--I forgot what she had--and he claimed it was because he couldn't bear to watch her suffer anymore, despite the fact the girl attended school and participated in activities like singing in church choir. He clean got away with it.
Abortion = cheapens the lives of children.
Euthanasia = cheapens the lives of the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.