Michigan v. Kevorkia

639 N.W.2d 291 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D went to Youk’s home to discuss Youk’s condition. Youk was suffering from ALS. Youk wanted to die and contacted D in the hope that D would assist him in his wishes. D then told Youk that he needed to sign a form indicating that he was consenting to a “direct injection instead of using the device, the machine.” D asked Youk if he wished to donate his organs, and Youk declined. D then read the consent form, which stated in part: I, Thomas Youk, the undersigned, entirely voluntarily, without any reservation, external persuasion, pressure, or duress, and after prolonged and thorough deliberation, hereby consent to the following medical procedure of my own choosing, and that you have chosen direct injection, or what they call active euthanasia, to be administered by a competent medical professional, in order to end with certainty my intolerable and hopelessly incurable suffering. D came back the next day and administered Anectine and Seconal before injecting Youk with potassium chloride. Youk died. The police were dispatched to Youk's house the next day at 1:30 a.m. They found Youk lying on his bed, dead. The police also found a Federal Express receipt with D’s name at the scene. The medical examiner listed the manner of death as homicide and the cause of death as intravenous injection of substances. During the autopsy, the medical examiner found two “fresh” needle marks on Youk’s left and right wrists that had been covered with makeup. The autopsy protocol stated that the cause of death was “poisoning by intravenous injection of substances.” D then appeared on 60 Minutes to show the Youk tapes he made and to publicize his views on right to die. D was indicted and tried for murder. D was convicted and appealed. D contends on grounds of the Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment that a person should not be forced to suffer unbearably.” D contends that he is entitled to have his murder conviction reversed and no further criminal proceedings instituted against him for “aiding in Thomas Youk’s assertion of his constitutional right to be free from intolerable pain and suffering.”