When Patrick Henry uttered his fervent admonition as to the depth of his conviction at the founding of this nation, there's no way he could have envisioned how those words would be drastically turned around.

Nothing could be more illustrative of that point than the spectacle of Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death) on "60 Minutes" recently - who seemed to be saying now, "Give us the liberty to cause death."

Kevorkian is an advocate for the right of terminally ill patients to legally control their own demise with the assistance of a qualified medical doctor. He has prevailed over the efforts by the Michigan legislature and judicial system to criminalize that assistance.

But the latest episode by "Dr. Death" has gone way over the line. When he administered a lethal injection to David Youk, of Michigan, who was afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease and wanting to end his own suffering, Kevorkian ceased being the most outspoken and notorious supporter of the right-to-die movement. He became a murderer.

Kevorkian said he videotaped the killing of Youk to make a point and to force the prosecutor charge him with murder. He accomplished both those goals, but those goals show Kevorkian ended Youk's life not to end his suffering but to advance an agenda, and that can't be accepted by a civilized society.

What's more, he probably set back a legitimate cause that he and others have been trying to bring to national consensus - the right to die with dignity and without prolonged and needless suffering. Because Kevorkian's motivation was not first and foremost a concern for his "patient," it was to call attention to himself and his "cause," his actions must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

At the moment Kevorkian, acting as the sole arbiter of the the efficacy of euthanizing Youk and without relying on a system of checks and balances, inserted the intravenous needle into the man's arm and injected the lethal combination of chemicals, he was no longer assisting - he was killing.

It wasn't a mere withholding of a life-prolonging technique or providing the necessary pharmaceuticals for the patient to self-administer. It was murder as surely as putting the barrel of a gun against Youk's head and pulling the trigger. It was murder because of Kevorkian's agenda.

To add insult to injury, Kevorkian's self-aggrandizing action added powerful ammunition to the opponents of a person's right to determine their own fate when their life is at an end.

The liberty to lead one's own life - or the freedom to end that life - is implied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And we, as a nation, should determine how to permit that to occur for those who find themselves in "no-hope" medical situations, if that is what they and their families choose.

The Hemlock Society USA, has been making the point that euthanasia can be responsibly used if reasonable criteria and guidelines are established. Chief among these are that the terminally ill patient and their family can request a medical doctor to aid them in painlessly ending their life.

The society's guidelines would also require that the patient has no more than six months to live, that the diagnosis and prognosis be confirmed by two independent physicians, and that the patient be determined by a mental health professional not to be suffering from depression or any other psychological disorder.

I can understand and appreciate those who say life is precious and no one should seek an easy way out of problems. I agree that seeking a physician's assistance in committing suicide because you've lost your job or your marriage, or any of the myriad of other setbacks thrown our way, isn't something we should condone. But what of those people who have no hope of recovery, who have nothing to look forward to but agonizing pain for their few, remaining days?

Personally, I can envision medical circumstances where my quality of life would deteriorate to the point that I would want the ability to have a doctor to put me out of my misery. If it's the humane to put down a horse that has broken its leg, or to put a house pet to sleep when their health can no longer be maintained by a veterinarian, why isn't it humane to allow a human being to choose that same compassionate treatment? Isn't it more moral to allow someone to end their suffering than to force them and their family to endure an agonizing end to their life?

I believe that it is.

And so does a majority of the American people. An April 1996 Gallup Poll found that 69 percent of Americans would support a terminally ill person's right to end their life with the aid of a physician if they so choose. Although only 30 percent said they would exercise that option themselves, it is significant that three out of four think such an option should be available to terminally ill patients in consultation with their families and physicians.

So, let's prosecute Dr. Death. He wants that, and he does deserve it because he killed Youk for the advancement of a political agenda, not the best interest of the patient.

But let us not lose sight that the messenger may be wrong in his actions and distasteful in his approach, but the problem he has brought to national attention is one that needs to be addressed if we are truly the kind and compassionate persons we would like to think ourselves to be. [[In-content Ad]]