The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, April 15, 1999, Image 13

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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