Kevorkian -- Dr. Death -- and his thoughts

If what this man says doesn't turn your stomach and remind you of Hitler, I don't know what will. Thankfully, he isn't the leader of national!

In a 1986 edition of Medicine and Law, Kevorkian asserted:

The so-called Nuremberg Code and all its derivatives completely ignore the extraordinary opportunities for terminal experimentation on humans facing imminent and inevitable death...[including] the extraction of medical benefit from the process of judicial execution from those dying of irremediable illness or trauma and from suicide mandated by inflexible religious or philosophical principles or by irrevocable personal choice. Other potential subjects include comatose, brain dead, or totally incapacitated individuals as well as live fetuses in or out of the womb.

“Dr. Guillotine’s Example,” in which he asserted:

Of course, capital punishment has always been rationalized as being “retribution” — allowing the condemned to “pay” with their lives. What nonsense! Payment means transfer of value. With execution there is no such thing; there is only total loss — and, of course, vengeance.

That no longer need be true. The fortuitous convergence of lethal injection and of our incredible success with organ transplantation promises to validate at least the erstwhile repayment. Many of the more than 1,200 men and women now crowding our states’ death rows are eager to suffer more meaningful death by donating vital organs to dying patients…Here finally, we have the opportunity to extract true payment — literal transfer of life from the condemned to the dying.

One thing we must realize here is that is he is not referring to the removal of organs after a person's execution. Here, he is referring to the removal organs while the condemned person is under anesthesia. What will sto this man from slowly killing off everyone he views as unwanted given the fact he goes on to list the types of "suicides" that should exist including "Suicide by proxy".

“Optional assisted suicide,” which he explained included “individuals, sometimes in good physical and mental health, who choose to be killed by another”:

The compelling factors may be physical (end stage of incurable disease, crippling deformity, or severe trauma), mental (intense anxiety or psychic torture inflicted by self or others), or doxastic (religious or philosophical tenets or inflexible personal convictions). Also in this group would be the forebears of Christianity in ancient Rome, whose “choice” to be killed by hungry lions in the Coliseum was preferable to the alternative “choice” of renouncing their faith (spiritual death).

“Obligatory Suicide,” a category comprised of “those irrevocably condemned to kill themselves,” such as “the Japanese ritual of hara-kiri” required by “a devout Shintoist guilty of intolerable sin [to] gain access to the next life.”

“Optional Suicide,” which differed from optional assisted suicide in that these would-be obitiatric subjects “are in no way afflicted by illness but who have arbitrarily and irrevocably decided that they must die.”

“Suicide by Proxy,” encompassing “the killing by the decision and action of another, of fetuses, infants, minor children, and every human being incapable of giving direct and informed consent.”

And what is his reason? Here's the kicker, it isn't to put anyone out of their misery as they above should already prove, but here it is in his own words.

I feel it is only decent and fair to explain my ultimate aim….It is not simply to help suffering and doomed persons kill themselves—that is merely the first step, an early distasteful professional obligation (now called medicide) that nobody in his or her right mind could savor. [W]hat I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish—in a word obitiatry.

Source