Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 15, 1999)
The Battalion O PINION Page 13 • Thursday, April 15, 1999 le worst coirl ; dearer ikJe rid come; .ring and;:.! on reform, by the lacl and Jante;:. Jor theEj eport byi ? Mitchell Reaping grim rewards Dr. Death serial murderer, not patients e president; hat do Jeffrey , _ Dahmer, i, and. g unc jy ) an d n the repo: p T k |Cp\orki.ni have in “"yMon,.non.; They lll 6» the hear terned abo itchellcoit at the IOC fit fails to imount; o nbersoni firee time; Zongres!: eptidsmi are all serial killers. ^■Jahmer’s vic tims were young Branixin MULLEN ritz said ted ye( (a letailsot! on answ Ihuck's 1 homosexual men. Bundy choose to prey on vulnerable women. And Kevorkian fulfills his passion by giv ing sick people a way to escape their pain. Brhe Michigan legal system has fi nally succeeded in putting “Dr. Death” behind bars, hopefully end- - ing his killing spree. hJ™i IWhile there is no hard evidence L/lvil.lha 1 ! Kevorkian is pathologically in clined to murder, the circumstance a | surrounding a number of his cases 1 Tfljshow he ignores the accepted med- *’ V1 iCal treatment his patients should re am? be.: ceive - kie and lilt P ne important point in the in Detre:: Kevorkian debate is presented in n Jonaik Kerby Anderson’s article, “Euthana sia. ” ■Anderson shows the difference between ‘‘life-taking’’ and “death permitting.” ^■“Death permitting” refers to the practice of removing a terminally ill e was or patient from life support and allow- v andnon ing nature to take its course, to talksrfe;This is an acceptable method for doctors to stop a patients suffering, blemar r By allowing a patient to die natural- indchai?® ly, the doctor would be leaving the ove his patient in the hands of fate, i police •iff.- But Kevorkian ignores fate and reach a stakes an active role in death. He d in a T0 practices “life taking.” The majority of Kevorkian’s pa tients are not on the verge of death, 'some are not even in danger of dying at all. Kevorkian has used his “Mer- citron,” or death machine, on pa tients who suffer from breast cancer. An article titled “Death and the Maiden,” by Stephanie Gutmann, states that some of Kevorkian’s pa tients “were not diagnosed terminal aid had not been complaining of se vere or constant pain.” p Gutmann cited Kevorkians pa tients who suffered from breast can cer as the perfect example of this, p Gutmann wrote that “there is now great hope” for breast cancer and that the psychological effects are greater than the physical. Kevorkian ,S YOt is using suicide as the acceptable so lution to depression. 4 ABO® Gutmann also highlighted the case of Janet Adkins. Adkins was a patient of Kevorkian’s who began suffering from Alzheimer’s. |i Her only symptoms at the time of her “treatment” by Kevorkian was that she forgot her tennis lessons and “kept leaving her purse in the house.” p Her doctors had even told her that Alzheimer’s takes around fifteen years to mature fully. & But under the care of Kevorkian, perform a Janet Adkins chose to die. In addi tion to the mistake of choosing to die so early, th ere were problems with her diagnosis. Gutmann wrote that, “Alzheimer’s can not be confirmed until after death.” And “that her symptoms were comparable to se vere depression.” Kevorkian did not mercy killing in the case of Janet Adkins. He found a vulnerable woman and convinced her that it was better his way. Dr. Eric Mchevler feels that the majority o ' Kevorkian’s patients choose death because of depression over their llness instead of the pain associated with it. Mchevler was chosen as one of the doctors to examine the video taped death of one of Kevorkian’s patients. Mchevler wrote in his arti Things,” that the witnessed was clinically de- cle, “First patient he obviously pressed frdm the said he scream ? en to pain.” He wanted to at the sere stop Kevoijkian be- type of is eas le. cause this depression ily treatabl Mchevler stat ed “of course eu thanasiaists always claim that death can their right are failing only end the pain and suffering of their victims.” But he said he feels that they are ig noring the possibility that the symptoms of depres sion can b£ treated. Unfortuhately for the patient on the screen Mchevler was not there and Kevorkian was and the patient died. Those vkho feel Kevorkian was simply helping these people utilize to govern their own body to notice one impor tant point — each one of Kevorkian’s patients was physically able to take their own Ives. They just could not do it them selves, which sug gests they were not 100 percent ready to die. They may have been able to say they were, but they could not do it alone. This is where Kevorkian came in. He talked to them and gave them a way that seemed easier. Dahmer used drugs, Bundy used his charm, and Kevorkian used his powers of persuasion. Brandon Mullen is a senior history and English major. Kevorkian conviction unjust, infringes on personal liberty MICHAEL WAGENER/The Battalion Brendan GUY O n March 29,Jack Kevorkian was found guilty of murder in the second degree for helping a ter minally ill man commit suicide. To a large ex tent he did bring this on himself. Televising the proce dure on “60 Minutes,” was obviously a bad idea. It turned what should have been a solemn and dignified event (the end ing of a human life) into an absurd media circus; thus making Kevorkian look callous and opportunistic to the American people. And then going into trial without a lawyer was absolute idiocy as it all but guaranteed a conviction. But despite these lapses in judgment, Kevorkian is still a crusader for the most fundamental right of all — the right to control our own bodies, and Ws criminal conviction is a blow to personal freedom of all Americans. Admittedly, the Supreme Court does not seem to acknowledge this right as it has ruled that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to die. But their interpretation does not make any sense. When the Supreme Court legal ized abortion, it did so because it be lieved the 9th Amendment gave peo ple an inalienable right to control what happens to their own bodies. If the 9th Amendment guarantees a right to abortion, it only seems logi cal that it would also permit physi cian-assisted suicide. After all, what possible reason can there be to refuse people, especially those suffering from terminal illness es, the right to end their lives in a painless, dignified manner? It is not that big a step to move towards legalizing doc- tor- assisted sui cide. Passive euthanasia, where a doctor simply stops providing med ical care to a patient who wants to die, is already legal. Given that the result of passive eu thanasia is exactly the same as the re sult of active doctor-assisted euthana sia it is difficult to see how there can be any moral difference between pas- how making suffering people live against their will is any kind of cele bration of life. For another thing, Americans have always be sn fairly pragmatic about life and death is sues. This is demonstrated by the continued legality and general accep tance of abortion, capital punish ment, passive euthanasia £ nd drop ping bombs on Serbia, so it is doubtful that legalizing physician-as sisted suicide will really change American values that much. And fi nally this slippery-slope argument just does not fit the availat le evi dence. Oregon, apparently the anly state that respects it citizens enc ugh to let them control their own lives, passed the Death with Dignity Act on Oct.27, 1997. As of Feb. 18, 1999, the 'Jew Eng land Journal of Medicine reports that only 15 people (all terminclly ill and with an average age of 69) have tak en advantage of this new law to end their own lives. Admittedly , the Ore gon law is still fairly restrictive (only the terminally ill can qualily under it) but it still seems to suggest that doc tor-assisted suicide will never be come that prevalent and thus cannot lead to a general devaluing of hu man life. Of course it is one thing to ad vocate physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill and quite another to advocate it for the general popula tion. But if we are going to call our selves a free society, we have to do so. There is a risk here, bur it is hard to believe that legalizing ac tive eu thanasia would lead to any great in crease in the number of people tak ing their own lives. Suicide is already far too easy to accomplish with exist ing methods; at least physician-assist ed suicide would be regulated. It would be easy enough to re quire a mandatory waiting period and counseling before a person could qualify for physician-assist 2d suicide. This would give people contem plating suicide time to think about what they are doing, and force them to talk to qualified counselors who might be able to talk them out of killing themselves. Physician-assisted suicide would also be far more efficient, removing any chance of a person being turned into a vegetable (a possibility with drug-related suicides) or oi hurting someone else (which exist; with au tomobile-accident suicides). And if nothing else, it would be p ainless, clean, quick and far more dignified than the existing methods aeople have of taking their own lives. Kevorkian believes the American people are capable of making their own decisions about whatiis best for sive and active euthanasia. The only real difference is passive euthanasia can frequently be a slow and rather painful process, while ac tive euthanasia is remarkably quick and supposedly painless. Of course, some people fear that crossing the line from passive to ac tive euthanasia would lead to the de valuing of all human life. An interest ing argument, but one that is severely flawed. For one thing, it fails to explain them, it is a shame that the Supreme Court and 49 of the state govern ments are not willing to give us the same respect. The laws against physician-assist ed suicide are both unnecessary and insulting, and when Kevorkian goes behind bars it will not be as a crimi nal but as a political prisoner of an unjust government. Brendan Guy is a senior political science and history major. ES ’ Corps of Cadets shows elitism to non regs I In response to Christina Barrows’Apr. 12 opinion column. I Barrows needs to recognize that the Corps sets an agenda and nurtures beliefs that are divisive. |A In the past few weeks, I have talked with several cadets — including a new yell leader — and all of them hold the belief that non-regs do not deserve to be yell leaders. I This smacks of elitism and arrogance at the highest level. The implication is that non-regs are somehow inferior Aggies when compared to those that choose to join the Corps of Cadets. Exacerbating the situation is the recently implemented corps block seating. Before, all Aggies stood united in Kyle Field as members of the 12th man. T In regards to cadet yell leaders repre senting non-regs, this is laughable. m0 *\ ( We heard “Fightin’ Texas Aggie Corps of Cadets!” multiple times at every yell prac- 36 r tice this past year, but not once did we hear jFightin’ Texas Aggie Non-Regs!” . wB Furthermore, support for cadet candi- ■'M' dates among non-regs is tenuous at best. i|| Barrows also makes a small reference , to cadets who might like to run but are for- * 0 ' bidden because they are not one of the five /designated Corps block candidates. This happened in 1996 when Gary Kipe was elected as a senior yell leader. Because Gary felt the Corps block’s method of candidate selection was wrong, he had his senior boots stolen. Please understand that I want nothing more than to see unity on this campus; but as long as the Corps maintains their cur rent system, that cannot be achieved. Sometimes it is necessary to take a stand and fight fire with fire. Non-reg student leaders are already tak ing the steps necessary to form a non-reg block. Anyone interested can e-mail at vote_nonreg@usa.net. It is hoped that this organization will eventually break the corps block and then blocks can be dissolved. Only then can we have a campus where the best candidates are selected, regard less of their affiliation with the Corps of Cadets. Doug Keegan Class of ’99 accompanied by 27 signatures Presentation of gay couples will not corrupt In response to Mark Passwater’s April 12 opinion piece “Homosexual-rights movie for second-grade students wrong.” MAIL CALL I agree with Mark Passwater—sex is not a cavalier issue, and should be approached with discretion and tact. I also agree that ho mosexuality, in our society today, is also a touchy issue. However, I do not agree that because of this children should be excluded from dis cussions of and education concerning ho mosexuality, or for that matter lesbianism, bi sexuality or transgenderism. From a very young age, children are ex posed to the idea that heterosexuality is good, right and “normal.” While they may be too young to completely understand “what happens when the light goes out,” they cer tainly are old enough to see and absorb our cultural bias towards heterosexuality. “Straight” couples are everywhere: in the media, in advertisements, and, yes in the car toons these children spend their afternoons watching. It is easy to see our cultural bias when one turns around questions that the GLBT com munity frequently faces: “Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be who you are and be quiet?” “Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?” “Why do heterosexuals seems so compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?" “If you have never slept with some one of the same sex and enjoyed it, is it pos sible that all you need is a good gay lover?” Passwaters says that “planting their (ho mosexual’s) beliefs in the minds of young children who are not mentally capable enough to make their own stance is not ed ucation—it is corruption.” I invite you to turn this phrase around also: what then gives heterosexuals the right to plant their beliefs in the minds of these same young children — some of whom, might I point out, may realize they are a member of the GLBT community later in their lives. How important would these messages of love and acceptance then be? The point is, presenting positive images of homosexuality and acceptance of the GLBT community is not an attempt either to “corrupt” our youth or to influence their par ents — it is an attempt to give individuals the ability to see past their parent’s prejudices and form their own opinions on the issue. Vanessa Reece Class of ’01 Bait should not cater to homosexual minority In response to “Gay Awareness Week ad dresses prejudices.” Yes, I will concede that there are many ho mosexual students attending Texas A&M, but they obviously do not represent a large enough consistuency to warrant such great attention or front-page news. I am aware that there are homosexual students who must confront mainstream prejudices every waking gour of the day. Is n’t this to be expected considering that ho mosexuals are a minority group who defy both biological and theological norms of the society in which they inhabit. Biologically speaking, the main goal of any species is to reproduce so as to carry on the species. Homosexuals fall rather short in this category because homosexu als fair to produce offspring in most scenar ios. The Battalion should represent it’s con stituency in a more sovereign fasion. Ho mosexuality has been wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong. As the old adage goes, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Nathan Noffsinger Class of ’02 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion • Mall Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mall: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
