The doyen of death dies.

The headline reads: "Jack Kevorkian Dead: Assisted Suicide Advocate Dies At Age 83"
Such a sad chapter in medical history. His "healthcare" was not "help" but homicide.

This comment caused one correspondent to comment, "Only if you view end of life decisions in a simplistic, black and white way. It isn't."

My reply:
Simplistic? Black and white? I don't think so. I consider life to be complex and colorful, comprehending decisions about death within that context.

The problem of euthanasia [eu (good) + thanatos (death)] is the problem of all ethics: what is good? That which one considers to be good gives definition to everything that one chooses to do. If good is simply what accords with one's own wishing, then the word "good" is meaningless. Good goes beyond what any one person wills to be so. So it is with suffering and so it is with death. Living for the greater good gives meaning to even the most grievous death.

My correspondent wrote:
"Simplistic, in that you sit in your world of theoretical ethics, translating Greek, and pronouncing all euthanasia evil no matter what. Only in a childish world of black and white is anything that clear cut and devoid of context. I am grateful that you nor anyone who thinks like you has any say over my life or the life of anyone I love, so that you can't condemn us to a horrific, meaningless death simply to serve some 'greater good' that you have no proof even exists."

My reply:
Uh ... I did not mention evil nor did condemnation come into my conversation. The greater good of which I write begins beyond the boundaries of whatever constitutes one's self. One does not make up one's own meaning - that would be nonsense. To serve some greater good is to acknowledge more than what one wills oneself. Any person other than oneself is proof enough that some greater good does exist.

My correspondent:
"You called euthanasia 'homicide,' which I took as something you would consider evil. What was your point in calling it 'homicide' if not to condemn his actions? Stop playing word games. You have determined that euthanasia, in every possible circumstance, is homicide since it is a purely selfish act only serving yourself. The universe does not lend itself to global moral pronouncements. The 'greater good' is not served in the same way in every circumstance. To claim so is to greatly simplify the complexity of life in this universe. Life is not a board game with rules written in the lid of the box, even if you label that lid 'scripture.' "

My reply:
I was questioning what the "good" in "good death" (euthanasia) means. I am not playing word games. I am asking questions.

My correspondent:
" 'Good' used as a relative term and not as an absolute can easily be applied to death. In asking the question in this context, you are, in fact, implying that euthanasia is not a good death, so your question seems somewhat rhetorical, which is why I didn't bother to answer it."

My reply:
What Kevorkian did was homicide, not suicide. My understanding of his method of operation leaves me with the opinion that there was not much good about what he was doing.

The word "euthanasia" is too often merely a euphemism for ending life in whatever manner one wills. The question of what is good is not really considered, but rather what is convenient or comfortable or cost-efficient.

The end of life must be considered in the context of life itself. What is a good life? This matters most for understanding what a good death may be. Since suffering is so much a concern when euthanasia is the subject of conversation, perhaps it would be helpful to consider how one is supposed to cope well with suffering in life so that one may be better able to cope with suffering in death. The question then is, "how is one to suffer?"