From 1990 to 1998 Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted people who wanted to take their own lives. To do so, the methods varied as his technique was perfected, but the result was always the same. They were killed by what came to be known as Kevorkian’s “suicide machine”, built with $30 worth of parts scrounged from hardware stores and garage sales.

Kevorkian’s patients were interviewed and counseled as to the gravity of their decision. The process led to some being turned away. Among those determined to be qualified for the process, however, they all had at least four things in common:

(i) They were all severely disabled, if not considered terminally ill;

(ii) All had voluntarily chosen to not continue their lives because of their disability;

(iii) On each occasion it was the patient. not Dr. Kevorkian, who pushed the button on the “suicide machine” that released the agent that ended their life; and,

(iv) On each occasion, their deaths took only moments.

Over the years numerous attempts to prosecute Dr. Kevorkian were made. Four criminal trials resulted in acquittals or mistrials. In several of these, lower courts declared that in the United States there is a constitutional right to die. Notwithstanding this “constitutional right”, however, in 1997 the Supreme Court apparently ruled that you may be damned if you help a patient in this effort. In short, they held that states have the right to outlaw doctor-assisted suicides if they so choose.

Michigan did so and a jury convicted Dr. Kevorkian in 1999 of second-degree murder. His sentence: 10 to 25 years in prison. He remains there to this day, not eligible for parole until 2007.

Now, compare his case with that of Terri Schiavo.

On March 18, 2005 Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was physically removed pursuant to an order of a court of law ensuring her eventual death. Can this be distinguished from the actions taken by Dr. Kevorkian? Most certainly, in the following ways:

• Dr. Kevorkian’s patients voluntarily forfeited their own lives, whereas Terri’s life was taken from her by others without her explicit consent.

• Kevorkian’s patients ended in mere moments, whereas Terri’s took fourteen long and torturous days of pain, dehydration and starvation to bring about her passage.

• The government made the deaths of Kevorkian’s patients illegal and they were forced act in secrecy to avoid the government’s detection whereas the official government sanction, if not approval, of Schiavo’s death and the process that brought it about was glaring. Police surrounded her to preserve the “integrity” of a degrading and torturous death, while people who attempted to alleviate her pain by administering a drink of water were arrested.

• In Kevorkian’s case judge after judge was petitioned to prosecute him, with one ultimately succeeding, whereas in Schiavo’s case judge after judge was petitioned to save her life and they not only refused to do so but, in fact, effectively facilitated her death with no less vigor and commitment than Kevorkian had displayed prior to going to prison.

So then, are we not left with the following question; Is there any practical or moral difference between one who administers an agent (i.e. a lethal injection) to a patient that will produce immediate death and one who forcefully denies that same patient an agent absolutely necessary for life to continue (i.e. food and water)?

Perhaps the following hypotheticals may illuminate the irony produced by all of this: Assume first that Terri Schiavo had been physically able to do so and specifically requested that Dr. Kevorkian assist her to effect her death by doing to her exactly what the judges involved in her case actually caused to transpire. Assume also that Kevorkian complied with this request and intentionally inflicted upon Terri Schiavo a death like the one we all just witnessed; a death far more hideous than Kevorkian ever dreamed of for any of his previous patients. Under these facts, would it seem appropriate in your opinion to release Dr. Kevorkian from prison so that he might serve on the bench in Florida (or perhaps even on the Supreme Court)?

Now assume Dr. Kevorkian did these things to Terri Schiavo without her consent and, while doing so, showed nothing but contempt for the pleas of her family and friends to spare her life. Under these facts would we not consider Kevorkian’s behavior to be that of a psychopath? Would merely sending such a man to prison be an adequate punishment for someone who would do such a thing to another human being? The question then becomes if prison is appropriate for Kevorkian whose acts were far less horrific, why not also for the judges involved in the Schiavo case?

Based on this analysis can we as a society avoid the conclusion that differing results in the Schiavo and Kevorkian cases are both logically and morally irreconcilable? And if we are brought to this conclusion, does that not leave us as a society with only a few options to remedy the conflict presented. Collectively, either we must condemn the actions of the judges involved in effecting the death of Terri Schiavo or we must promptly issue an apology to Kevorkian.

In the end, however, we will probably choose to do neither. Thus, by default we will most probably select the only other option that remains: to turn a blind eye towards our hypocrisy. Sadly, however, this can only be achieved at the expense of justice.