[I’ve added my own comments, in red bolded type.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have embedded the trailer for the upcoming puff HBO bio of the murderer Jack Kevorkian, entitled, You Don’t Know Jack, at the bottom of this post. Before viewing it, take a look at a few of the key aspects of Kevorkian’s “career” that I have listed below. Anyone want to bet whether the movie will bring these facts up?

1. Before assisting the suicides of disabled, terminally ill, and the non sick despairing, Kevorkian went to most prisons where executions are conducted asking to experiment on condemned prisoners. […because these prisoners have no intrinsic value, or are less than human?]

2. He never limited his killing practice to people with terminal illnesses. About 70% were disabled. Five of Kevorkian’s patients were not sick upon autopsy. [Note that an autopsy cannot diagnose depression or other mental illness.]

3. Kevorkian took the kidneys from one assisted suicide victim–a man with quadriplegia–and held a press conference offering them “first come, first served.” [What does this say about the motives for assisting in suicide in cases where organs are later harvested?]

4. Janet Good (played by Susan Sarandon), conspired with Kevorkian in his reign of lawlessness, even planning to help kill a patient and then, with Kevorkian, rush the cadaver into a hospital, so organs could be procured. (They never carried out the plan). She committed assisted suicide and her autopsy showed that her pancreatic cancer was not near the terminal stage.

5. Kevorkian did not care much about alleviating the suffering of patients, (he once said he couldn’t remember their names) but rather called it “a first step, an early distasteful professional obligation” toward obtaining a license to engage in human experimentation, writing further:

What I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish–in a word, obitiatry–as defined earlier.” [Kevorkian liked to coin terms. Obitiatry is the word he invented to describe experimenting on people as part of the practice of human euthanasia.) [Kevorkian treated his victims like LAB RATS.  Where‘s PETA when you need ‘em?]

6. Kevorkian wanted to experiment on the brains and nervous systems of people he was euthanizing, writing in his 1991 book Prescription Medicide:

If we are ever to penetrate the mystery of death–even superficially–it will have to be through obitiatry…But knowledge about the essence of human death will of necessity require insight into the nature of the unique awareness of consciousness that characterizes cognitive human life. That is possible only through obitiatric research on living human bodies, and most likely by concentrating on the central nervous system [He clearly wasn‘t interested in the victims‘ human dignity, or in the dignity of their passing.]

Jack Kevorkian is a dangerous nut who should be shunned, not celebrated. But you won’t see any of this in the movie, because HBO, the producers, and Pacino don’t know Jack. And the worst part is that they–and the popular media generally–don’t want to know Jack. They have a story they want to tell and facts would just get in the way.
[And they want to push the idea that people have a right to die when they so please.  But our lives are given us by our Creator, who knows best when our lives should end.]

As LifeSiteNews reported this week:

In another powerful and articulate address, the young Toronto native explores the devastating consequences Canada would face if it welcomed euthanasia, and implores Canadians to find ways of caring for suffering patients rather than killing them.

Lia’s speech on abortion last year, which won her school’s public speaking competition, has now been viewed over 850,000 times on Youtube.  The story was LSN’s most popular good news story of 2009, and she shared a revised version of the speech at last year’s National March for Life in Ottawa.

Without further ado, here’s Lia on abortion:

and on euthanasia:

When the Hippocratic Oath was written human life had little value, abortion and suicide were common practices. The oath was a social contract between physician and patient. The heart of the oath stated:

I WILL FOLLOW that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman an instrument to produce abortion.

If your physician had taken this oath you could have confidence that he upheld the sanctity of human life and would try to cure your illness to the best of his abilities; he would not take it upon himself to kill you.

Where are we today in relation to the original oath?

Three years before euthanasia was officially legalized in the Netherlands World magazine ran an article “The Dutch culture of death” on May 23, 1998.

An excerpt:

Furthering the de facto legalization in the guidelines is the loophole for force majeure, or euthanasia “without the explicit request of the patient.” Under that rubric, euthanasia is allowed “if the person concerned was compelled to commit a criminal act by circumstances.” Doctors can be exempted from prosecution in even forcible euthanasia cases where their two duties “conflict”: the choice between the duty to preserve life and the duty to relieve unbearable suffering when there is no prospect of improvement. Herbert Hendin, an American physician who last year authored Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and the Dutch Cure notes that “the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia; from euthanasia for those who are terminally ill to euthanasia for those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress; and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia.”

This excerpt is from Life News on June 23, 2008:

Oregon resident Barbara Wagner found out last month that her lung cancer, in remission for about two years, was back. After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover it. It would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, assisted suicide.

Another excerpt from World, “A License to kill” on August 9, 2008:

Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostrate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment. The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death.

Following are four oaths, the original Hippocratic Oath, a modern Hippocratic Oath, a revised modern Hippocratic Oath, and another modern oath.

The heart of each oath has been bolded and italicized.

Compare what each says.

Think about the implications.

Consider asking your physician which oath he has taken.

Another Modern Oath

Another version, approved by the American Medical Association, is as follows:

You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred: That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members. That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.

That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice.

That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it.

That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.

These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.