Annotated+Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography:  1. ** URL ** : [] From the New York Times ** Title: ** Kevorkian Freed After Years in Prison for Aiding Suicide ** By ** [|MONICA DAVEY] ** Published: ** June 2, 2007 ** Information: ** This is an informational report. It is discussing what Dr. Jack Kevorkian does, and why he does it. It also talks about his life after prison. This isn’t directed to people who are an “expert in the field” it is for anybody that is interested in it. ** Summary: ** The author doesn’t have pass judgment, nor hold a certain side to the story, because they are just stating the facts. The author doesn’t have any bias opinions, or hold any side to the story because she is just expressing what happened after he got freed from prison. The author talks about why he was in prison, and what he did when he got out. The information she gives is primarily interviews with Jack Kevorkian and other writers. The evidence the author gives is his quotes from different interviews. ** Evaluation: ** Yes, the work makes a lot of sense and very logical. It was easy for me to stay interested, and follow along with the events that took place. The author doesn’t have a position in this story, because she is just stating what happened, and isn’t giving her own opinion on how she feels about the topic. Reflection: yes, this source is helpful because it shows different opinions and viewpoints on this topic. Because this topic is so controversial, it has a lot of different opinions. It didn’t sway my opinion or my beliefs, because I think Jack Kevorkian is a hero, rather than a murderer.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

//New York Times// [New York] 2 June 2007: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. . Information: This is an informational report. It is discussing what Dr. Jack Kevorkian does, and why he does it. It also talks about his life after prison. This isn’t directed to people who are an “expert in the field” it is for anybody that is interested in it. Summary: The author doesn’t have pass judgment, nor hold a certain side to the story, because they are just stating the facts. The author doesn’t have any bias opinions, or hold any side to the story because she is just expressing what happened after he got freed from prison. The author talks about why he was in prison, and what he did when he got out. The information she gives is primarily interviews with Jack Kevorkian and other writers. The evidence the author gives is his quotes from different interviews. Evaluation: Yes, the work makes a lot of sense and very logical. It was easy for me to stay interested, and follow along with the events that took place. The author doesn’t have a position in this story, because she is just stating what happened, and isn’t giving her own opinion on how she feels about the topic. Reflection: yes, this source is helpful because it shows different opinions and viewpoints on this topic. Because this topic is so controversial, it has a lot of different opinions. It didn’t sway my opinion or my beliefs, because I think Jack Kevorkian is a hero, rather than a murderer. Reflection: I believe that Jack Kevorkian is a hero, and others may think he is a murderer, this is a very contraversal man who decided to share with the world his beliefs. This has helped develop my argument because I got to see Jacks viewpoints.
 * 1) Davey, Monica. "Kevorkian Freed After Years in Prison for Aiding Suicide."

2. Kevorkian, Jack, and John A. Pridonoff Interviewed by. "Physicians Should Assist in Suicide." //Physician Assisted Suicide//. Ed. Bruno Leone, et al. San Diegoq: David Bender, 1998. 9-11. Print. Information: The author of this particular interview is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Obviously, he has the crudentials because he is a doctor, and he is the main person I am focussing on. This is an informational piece and intended for anyone that wants to know more about physicial-assisted suicide. Jack Kevorkian is interviewed and talks about why people don't agree with it, and why we take it so seriously, when all it really is, is someone making a decision. Summary: Jack Kevorkian is arguing that these suicides aren't to end someones life, it is to end someones suffering. If people are terminally ill, and feel as if they don't want to life, then it is their decision, and nobody is going to talk them out of it, nor fight it. The main arguments are that it is wrong, and especially catholics don't agree with this because they feel that god should take their life, and it's not their right to decide. But, as I read on, Dr. Kevorkian made great points that it really is the persons decision, and I personally don't understand why people are getting so mad when it isn't there life. The evidence that he has is actual cases. He has done this before, he knows what is going on in the patients heads, as well as the doctor's heads. He has been their before, and knows that to do. Evaluation: yes, this is very clear and easy to understand because it's just Dr. Jack Kevorkian talking about his beliefs. The topic has been properly addressed, and anyone could follow along to what he is saying and what he is trying to get across. He doesn't necisarly have have a bias, but he isn't afraid to say how he feels and his own opinions. He talks about his life and how he feels, he doesn't try to persuade anyone into believing something, he just simply states how he feels. Reflection: Yes, this is very helpful to my research, because i've been looking for an interview of Jack Kevorkian. This really shows his views and it's not someone writting about him, it is actually his words and an interview that is perfect!

3. Rifkin, Arthur. "Euthanasia Can Be Ethical." //The Ethics of Euthanasia//. Ed. Bruno Leone, et al. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. 9-12. Print. Opposing Viewpoints. Information: Since their is no specific author to this anthology, I will site the author of this specific section I've read. Author, Arthur Rifkin is a doctor MD - Psychiatrist - Manhasset, NY. He has written many books that have helped readers better understand his ethics and health concerns. This is somewhat of an informational review for anyone that's interested in learning about it. Summary: The authur was expressing how he felt, as well as society. He believes that it can be ethical if it is done properly and safely. If someone finds their life meaningless and they are in a great deal of pain they have the right to decide what they want, but the author also believes that medicine and technology can help and it's a safer alternative to death. The evidence that the author provides is previous work he has done. Because he is a doctor, there have been many patients he has helped with their desire to die. He has never actually helped to attept suicide, but he has seen many cases where people would like to end their lives. He supports my argument in that a human has a right to choose their life, and that everything is about decisions, and if people decide that's what they want, then I feel that they have a right. Evaluation:Yes, everything is clear, and the topic has been thoroughly addressed. The author has somewhat of an objective stance because he feels that people should choose. He also thinks that some people don't have a right to choose if they are not terminally ill, nor are trying to survive. He takes both sides of this argument so he isn't pursuading anyone to vere their opinions, he's simply telling his. Reflection: This has helped me with my rearch because it shows a clear understanding of euthanasia and what it's meant for, and how it can be taken advantage of. It shows me many different sides and if has helped me with my research.

4. Spong, John Shelby. "Euthanasia is Consistant with Christian Beliefs." //The// //Ethics of Euthanasia//. By John Shelby Spong. Ed. Daniel A Leone, et al. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. 30-35. Print. Opposing Viewpoints. Information: This author is a retired bishop, and an author of three other books. This would be considered into informational as well as editorial, and you do not need to be an expert in the field to read and enjoy this. Summary: The author is a retired bishop, and since this artical is on the catholic beliefs of euthanasia, it is very reliable. The author believes that society has a hard time accepting this, but it's reality. He said "We have extended the boundaries of life to where the calues and definitions of yesterday collide with the technology and skill of today." And he also believes that some doctors and some of the world is too fixated on finance, and knowing that a patient is in the hospital, that brings in more money, so keeping a patient alive would be more important because of the money, rather than their beliefs and what they truley want in life. Evaluation: Yes, very logical and clear, but to some of a different religion and/or background would feel opposite of this, but still very clear. And the topic was addressed logically and there was no bias. But their was a certain viewpoint. Reflection: Yes, this helped a lot because this was a big issue I have talked about, "Is active, as well as passive, euthanasia an acceptable practice within the ethics of Christian people?" society feels that it's wrong (especially Christians) and this viewpoint helped me better understand, because it's not all christians, this is a former bishop, and he agrees that it's the persons choice.

5. Markus, Andrew C. "Assisted Suicide is Moral." //Physician Assisted Suicide//. Ed. James H. Ondrey. Michigan: Bonnie Szumski, 2006. 56-67. Print. Inofomation: Adrew C. Markus practices medicine and biology. He has written many books in this realm, such as "Life or Death, Mad or Sane- who decides?", and others. This was an informational report, and intended for anyone who wants to know more about it. This author has crudentials because he has written about this before and he is known for writting about what he believes in. Summary: Andrew C. Markus is a very smart man, and as I was reading, he gave many useful points. He was saying that how nobody in their right mind would commit suicide, therefore, anybody who plans it has to be crazy, which is why it is illegal. But, he believes that it's okay for people to want death, and it's okay to actually go through with it when there is a proper cause. He believes if someone is sick and terminally ill, then they have a right to choose what they want to do with their life and how they want to live it. The main arguments are all in the topic of assisted suicide, and they all talk about how the public isn't ready to accept this fact, but the argues that if it's not their life, then people have to mind their own buisness, and if it's not effecting someone, then they should leave it alone. Because he was once a retired doctor, he had many patients that were unhappy with their life, so those patients and their own stories are facts alone. He also said that "A doctors job is to stop all pain, and to make the patient happy" sometimes this means to end their life, because if someone isn't getting better, and the treatment is too expensive, and they don't want to live, then what is the point? It is their life and they get to choose what happens to it. Evaluation: Yes, it is very clear. It is clear that Mr. Markus has well researhed this because he has been through it and knows what patience talk about, and knows what they think about. The topic was well addressed because not only did it voice his opinion, but it voiced all the opinions of this patients and how they felt about this contraversal issue. The author has somewhat of a certain postion, but mainly because he knows how he feels about this topic. He voices his opinion, and doesn't really care what anyone else has to say about it. He believes that when a patient is really in pain, then they can choose what they want and when they will do it. But, he is not persuading anyone into believing how he thinks. Reflection: Yes, this source was helpful, not only because he was a doctor beofre, but because he really says it like it is. Also, this has helped my with specific cases, such as the young man, Tony Bland who was injured in the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 1989. He was unable to talk or make a decision because he was a persistent vegitative state, so therefore there had to be a court hearing, and he was later stopped getting feed, through his feeding tube. This docor gave many other examples, and these examples really made me appreciate my life a lot more.

6. Fontana, Tom, Glenn Rigberg, and Scott Ferguson. //You Don't Know Jack//. Barry Levinson. HBO Films, 2010. //www.hbo.com//. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. . Information: The director, Barry Levinson is best known for directing Avalon, Toys, Wag the Dog, and Sleepers. He has many expierence when working with movies, and does a great job. He graduated high school in 1960, then attended American University in Washington, DC. Later, he moved to Los Angelos and studied acting, improvisation, and production at Oxford Company. This movie is based on the true story of Jack Kevorkian, so it is somewhat informational. You don't need to be an expert in the field to enjoy this movie, anyone over 17 can watch this movie, and not only understand it, but really get into it. Summary: The director doesn't really have a certain stand point, nor biased opinion. The reason he doesn't have one is because you can't have a personal stand point on something that is a fact, he can't change the movie and events because he feels like it, because then it would be false information. He simply directed and recreated Jack Kevorkian's life, with actual events, and people in his life. This movie was amazing, it really showed who Jack is, and how he is one of the greates minds of our time. The director uses real life issues that has happened, including running for congress, painting, making music, performing assisted suicide, making the machine, etc. All things that Jack Kevorkian really did in his daily life. This movie really got into Jack's life, and who he is. People know him as Dr. Death, but this movie shows him as a human being who had a dream and went after it. Jack isn't a monster, and this film helped better my understanding of him. Evaluation: Yes, this movie is very clear and easy to understand, even if you haven't seen the documentary. The director isn't motivated to make Jack look good or bad, he is simply retelling his story, and their are interviews with Jack himself, and Jack says that the movie was great, and very adequate. The main topic was to show the world and help the world learn about what Jack actually does. He is not a murderer, he is a saint because he puts people out of their misery. Reflection: Yes, this is very helpful because like i said before, it shows who Jack Kevorkian really is, and what he does. This has helped with my argument that assisted suicide should be taken very seriously, but also allowed to be done under certain circumstances. Jack only performed them for people that he believed were in need, and people that wanted his help. He said "I don't persuade suicide" which is true because he blelieves it should only happen if they want it. This was a great movie, and I advise anyone to see it.

7. Jones, Steve Lee, et al. //Kevorkian//. Mathew Galkin. HBO Films, 2010. //HBO//. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. . Information: The director, Matthew Galkin is an award-winning director who won for the film "I Am an Animal". He is also the director the the series, Kimora Lee Simmons: Life in the Fab Lane, which follows Kimora on the Style network. This is very informational, because it is a documentary. There are no actors, no sit-ins, this was Jack Kevorkain and his real life. Nobody has to be an expert in the field to enjoy this, it is a very emotional film that digs deep at who Jack is. Summary: I saw this documentary more than once, and I love it everytime. Although it is emotional, it is informational as well, and allows the viewer to know the real Jack. The topics covered are how Jack Kevorkain feels, his beliefs, his battles, and his entorouage. You see his lawyer, and his friends that have helped him along the way. This documentary shows Jack running for congress in Michigan, shows his jail cell roomate, and shows actual patients and actual footage from different court dates. As for the facts; the whole thing is based on facts, and everything is accurate. Evaluation: Yes, it is logical and clear, as well as adequately addressed. And the director has no bias, because it is Jack, and his life. He is video taping his day-to-day life, not hiring actors to portray him. Reflection: This is probably the most useful source so far. I say this because it is real, there is no tricks or holes because it is the real Jack Kevorkian, real interviews, real life, real footage. The viewers really get to see who he is, and what he does. He believes in the 9th amendment, which allows people to have a say, and do what they want. He is a great person, and a hero to me. He is strong-willed, and wants to prove a point to the world, and I believe he does a great job doing so.

8. Davey, Monica "Kevorkian Speaks after His Release from Prison." //New York Times// [New York] 4 June 2007: n. pag. //The New York Times//. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. . Information: She has written many articles for the New York TImes, and she is a well respected writter. Ms. Davey received a Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics from Brown University. I also cited another article written by her. This is an informational piece, and lets me know who Jack Kevorkian is. It's also somewhat an interview, but it's technically not, there are just a lot of quotes from him. The audience is for anyone who is interested in it, it's not meant for somewhat who has a whole lot of expierience in the field. Summary: Jack Kevorkian was saying how he wishes that a lot more states could be like Oregon, because that's the only state that allows the suicide under certain circumstances. When they asked Jack if he will perform another assisted suicide he said “Sorry”. “Don’t blame me. Blame your government for passing the laws." Jack is very interested in human rights, and cares a lot about keeping them. THe main arguments would be Jack and the public. A lot of people are against him, and don't believe that what he does is right. Some people find him to be a devil, and some an angel. He was in jail for 8 years, and said he doesn't regret anything. He actually encouraged his jail sentance by filming a suicide, and then saying he has assisted over 130 suicides. Evaluation: This is very logical and clear, but it's very "all over the place" because it's a little bit of interviews from all over. A whole bunch of different people asking him questions, and then it's joined into one article. Yes, the topic is well addressed, because the title was about what Jack thought after jail, and this gave many quotes of what he thought. No, the author doesn't have a certain stance because she gave examples of both sides of Jack. The side that shows his personal life, and the side that shows his perfession, and his work ethic. Reflection: This has really helped me because it gave real examples from what Jack actually said, and believes in. I feel really confident in this article, because I know I will use it a lot, and take the examples and put it in my presentation. Jack has high blood pressure, diabetes, and Hepatitis C, so he has to take good care of himself in order to live the long life he wants. He has said that he isn't afraid of death, and "everyone is goine to die" but he asked the question "Aren’t you interested in what’s going to happen?”...

9. Battin, Margaret P., PhD, Jasper Emmering, MD, and Courtney S Campbell, PhD. "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? Pro's and Cons." //ProCon.org//. N.p., 13 Mar. 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. . Information: There are many many authors here, and instead of writting them all down, I just gave a few exaples. But, all of these authors have their PhD, or MD, which allows a credible source. Also, they are all specialists in this field of work. This is very informational, as well as a little persuassive, and the reason why I say it's a little persuassive is because this site is all about pros and cons, and if gave many examples of both, which may vere your opinion a little. But, I would say it's mostyl informational because of the facts. The intended audience is people who feel strongly about self euthanasia, and assisted- suicide, or anyone that wants to know more about it. Summary:Since there is more than one author, there is no specific side they are taking. There are many authors, that are talking about both positives and negatives. Some of the main arguments for the Pros were : "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" which basically means that a person has a right, and if they are suffering, then they should be able to choose their life. One main point from the Con side is : However, permitting physicians to engage in euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good. Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks." Which basically says that it's aweful that someone would want their life to come to an end, but there is no reason for people to help, because society isn't ready for that, and there will be many more issues to come if this becomes legal. Evaluation: This work is very logical, very organized, and very clear. This website makes sure that everyone is accurate, and reliable. The topic is well addressed, and has two viewpoints on the topic, not just one. Like I said before, their are many different authors, so their is no bias, unless you are talking about an author from the Pro side, against an author from the Con side, because they ovbiously have different reactions and beliefs. Reflection: This is very helpful, and I love this website, I will use this to cite many different articles throughout this website, and it has helped me see two sides to the story, rather than just one. This website is great!

10. The American Medical Association (AMA, et al. "Does Dr. Jack Kevorkian ethically serve the best interests of his patients? Pros and Cons." //ProsCons.org//. N.p., 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. . Information: Because there are many authors, there are more options. And all of these authors are either doctors, or have worked with Jack Kevorkian. This is informational because of all the facts, but also somewhat persuassive because of the facts they give for both Pros and Cons. This is meant for anyone interested in this field, you don't have to be a specialists to enjoy it. Summary: There are many authors, because there are authors for pros and authors for cons, so I get to read about both sides. And some of the main arguments for the Pros is : Well, it's not to help them die. See, everyone's got this backwards. It's to relieve them of their intolerable and unending suffering. The patient's wish - see, that's not my wish." - Jack Kevorkian on asked if it was hard to help people die. Jack Kevorkian is a nice man, and he believes that a doctor is there to cure and end suffering, and make wishes come true. Some main arguments for Cons are : "By invoking the physician-patient relationship to cloak his actions, Jack Kevorkian perverts the idea of the caring and committed physician, and weakens the public's trust in the medical profession." Said by the AMA, and they are saying that it isn't right, and it's basically going against what doctors are supposed to be doing. This, I don't agree with, but once again, i get to understand both sides. Evidence: This is very clear, and logical, and gets right to the point. These authors get straing to the main point, and it is very well addressed. It depends on what author, obviously the authors on the Pro side have a different opinion then the authors from the Con side. Reflection: This was very helpful because I got quotes from Jack himself, and peopel that have worked with him. THis site is very helpful because it is so clear and easy to understand. The organization is wonderful, and I can keep up with what is happening.