August 21, 2025 • 15 mins
George Noory and lawyer Wesley Smith discuss his work against assisted suicide and euthanasia, the moral questions behind the work of doctors like Jack Kevorkian who promoted assisted suicide, and how doctors can often be wrong predicting how long a sick person may live.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
And welcome back George Norry along with Wesley Smith as
we are talking about the humankind and his websites are
linked up at Coast tocoastam dot com. Wesley I had
mentioned that the twelve jurisdictions have legalized assistant suicide. No
states have legalized youth in Asia. What's the difference between
the two? Can you tell us?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Yeah, morally, I don't think there is a difference, But
in terms of the discussion, assistant suicide is when somebody
assists in the case you're talking about generally a doctor,
but it's no longer necessarily. A doctor can also be
a nurse practitioner in some states by prescribing poison and
(00:47):
overdose and intentional overdose of drugs for somebody to kill themselves.
They like to call it medical aid and dying made.
That's a euphemism to try to get away from what's
really going on, that a doctor is actually assisting a
patient kill themselves. Euthanasia is when the doctor, again using
(01:10):
the general parlance, does the killing, so it's a homicide.
It's not murder because it's legal in the states. I
mean in the countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium,
and so forth. But it is a homicide where the
doctor is killing as a medical treatment. And that gets
back to the idea of d harm medicine, because when
(01:31):
doctors become killers, it changes the entire way the culture
looks at medicine and also looks at weak and vulnerable people,
ill people and people with disabilities. And it becomes a
different society because it changes your whole mindset, since you
decided as a society once you legalize these things, that
(01:52):
life itself is not an inherent good.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Now, Jackovorkian was a practitioner of euthanasia, Wasn't.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
He both assisted suicide and euthanasia. People might not remember,
but back in the nineties, Jack of Orcian, that's when
I cut my teeth on these issues. He was a
retired pathologist. He'd never actually treated patients outside of medical school,
(02:19):
and after he retired he started He wrote a book
called Prescription Meticide, in which he pushed assisted suicide not
as a means primarily of alleviating suffering, but so that
he could engage in what he called obitiatry that was
in other words human vivisection. He wanted to experiment on
people he was euthanizing, and that was the role, the
(02:41):
goal of his assisted suicide campaign. The media didn't like
to talk about that because the media became in the tank,
in my opinion, for assisted suicide, so they were always
talking about him trying to alleviate suffering. But he said
in his own book that wasn't his primary purpose. Jack
of Orkian, people were flying to Michigan to be assisted
(03:02):
in suicide, most of them were disabled, somewhere terminally ill,
and he would kill them with carbon monoxide in his
rusty van. And yet that was deemed compassion the time
that he moved from assisted suicide, where people would you know,
trigger the carbon monoxide themselves. He euthanized a man named
(03:29):
Thomas Yoke who had Louke Garretts as he's als, and
he filmed himself doing it. And he then took the
film because Jack of Orkin was really about Jack of Orkian,
he took the film to sixty minutes and Mike Wallace,
the late Mike Wallace, was a euthanasia proponent. They put
it on sixty minutes and I'll never forget Mike Wallace
(03:50):
saying to Kivorkian, is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?
And Cavorkian would say, no, he's just sedated. It was
really a horrible thing, but that pushed the endble a
little bit too far, and he was convicted of I
think it was second degree murder and he did about
ten years in jail. And the really to me shameful
thing is that when he got out of prison, he
(04:11):
was getting fifty thousand dollars a speech. Before he became
ill and passed away. Naturally, he said he wouldn't do that,
but he did.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yeah, he died at the age of eighty three. Did
he enjoyed doing what he was doing.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
I never met him, but I think he did, and
I think he really enjoyed the notoriety he received. Ralph
Nader once said to me that it was a great shame.
And Ralph Nader and I have co authored some books
together and were friends, and he said to me, it
was what a great shame that Jack of Orkian for
a period of time had become the most famous doctor
in the world because he was helping to kill people
(04:48):
with carbon monoxide. And I think Ralph was absolutely correct
about that.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Tell Ralph high for us. He loves our show by the.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Way, I love Ralph.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Canada has legalized youth and nation asn't it Yes?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And this I think Canada is a real warning sign
for the United States because they are our closest cultural cousins.
Canada legalized lethal injection euthanasia. I think it was twenty fifteen,
and since then they've gone from allowing doctors to kill
the terminally ill who asked for it, to the chronically
(05:22):
ill who asked for it, to people with disabilities who
ask for it, to the frail elderly who ask for it,
and starting in twenty twenty seven, doctors will be allowed
to kill the mentally ill who ask for it. And Canada,
as well as in Netherlands, in Belgium and some other places,
they've conjoined euthanasia with organ harvesting. In fact, in Ontario,
(05:46):
the Province of Ontario, if a patient goes to a
doctor and says I want to be killed, and many
many patients now qualify for that. In fact, the last
year that there was a record fifteen thousand people. More
than fifteen thousand people in Canada were euthanized and it
became the fifth leading cause of death. But in Ontario,
(06:07):
if you go to a doctor and say I want
to be euthanized, and the doctor determines you're qualified, the
doctor will then call the organ procurement organization and tell them, well,
you know, Charlie is going to be dead on Tuesday
the fifteenth, and the organization will then call Charlie and say,
can we have your liver? Can we have your kidney?
It's really turns in some regards. It turns euthanasia turns
(06:32):
people into objects, because once you become killable, you cease
to be necessarily a subject. And let me give you
an example of this. In the Netherlands, there was a
tragic case of a sixteen year old girl who was
diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and before she was going
into the the later stages of her condition, she asked
(06:57):
to be euthanized. And she asked to be euthanized, not
because she was suffering at that time, but because she thought,
if I am euthanized, I can become an organ donor
and I can help other people. Well, as soon as
the doctor said yes, they put her into a thirty
six hour coma. Now the coma wasn't for her benefit.
She ceased to in a sense, be the point. Her
(07:19):
organs became the point. So she was in the coma.
They did the testing necessary and the tissue typing and
so forth to find recipients, and once they found the recipients,
then she was killed and her organs taken. This is
the kind of thing that can happen in euthanasia. Here's
another story from Canada during the COVID crisis. A elderly woman,
(07:44):
as happened to too many elderly people, including my late
mother in law, woman was isolated because of the COVID restrictions.
The isolation was lifted, and then there was going to
be a second time where people weren't going to be
able to see her. Her family wasn't going to be
able to visit her, so she asked to be euthanized.
(08:08):
And the deep irony, George, was that while they wouldn't
allow her to be with her so she could live,
they allowed them to be with her when she was killed.
So this is the kind of thing you see repeatedly,
and in Canada, you see people being euthanized because they
can't obtain proper medical care. Oncologists, for example, there have
(08:31):
been a couple of cancer patients that have been reported
in the news that were euthanized, not because they wanted
to be, but because it would take nine months to
get an oncologist. And euthanasia, when it becomes widely accepted
and normalized, can become a substitute for caring for people,
let's say, expensive conditions or extreme conditions. So these things
(08:53):
are very dangerous. Now. Many people in the United States
will say, well, we haven't gone that far, and that's true,
we haven't gone that far yet. But there is a
road that you start down, and it's a logical progression.
Once you decide that killing is an acceptable answer to
human suffering, and once you do that, the kind of
suffering that justifies the killing eventually expands. And the strict
(09:16):
guidelines that we often hear about to protect against abuse,
as soon as the law is passed and it becomes
legal and it starts to become normalized, the guidelines that
were deemed protections are now called obstacles and barriers to
a good death. And so you see the progression. Even
in the United States, you begin to see now loosening
(09:39):
of restrictions, doing away with residency requirements, assisted suicide in
some states by telemedicine and this kind of thing. So
it's a very dangerous road we are on in the
West with regard to this issue, and I think people
get very caught up in the idea, well, I don't
want to suffer. Well, of course nobody does. People aren't
(10:01):
being killed, according to the statistics in Canada, in Oregon,
in the Netherlands, because of pain very few. Most of
the people who are asking for these conditions or these
terminations do so because of existential issues, and they're very important,
but they can be handled like fear of being a burden,
(10:24):
fear of losing dignity, fear of being unable to enjoy
certain activities and so forth, and those are important. And
I would also hasten to add that in a society
that's supposed to be anti suicide, people who ask for
assisted suicide or euthanasia, depending on where one lives, don't
receive suicide prevention services. And yet studies have shown that
(10:49):
even terminally ill people, if they receive proper care, often
might become suicidal and then are very happy they changed
their minds. In fact, when hospice was first started, Dame
Cecily Saunder's a great medical humanitarian who started the modern
hospice movement. One of the key points in hospice at
the time was suicide prevention if someone was suicidal. But
(11:13):
the assisted suicide movement has compromised many hospices, not all,
and some participate in assisted suicide, which is a complete
rejection of Dame Cecily's philosophy.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Are there any conditions that you would support assisted suicide
or euthanasia?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
No, because you can't limit it to the most extreme conditions,
and no law in effect in the world today does.
They will for example, terminllness six months to live. Well,
recent studies showed that that's a very unreliable projection. Doctors
don't necessarily know who has six months to live, and
(11:54):
we've seen even in Oregon, in some of the states,
people have lived for more than two or three years
after receiving the lethal prescription. It's just not a door
you can open. What we need to do is provide
care for people. We need to have significant interventions, make
sure people are not isolated, and so forth. And I
(12:17):
don't think there is any way to pass a law
that can maybe help that one or two alleviate that
very rare condition. They can't. Where you can't alleviate suffering,
you can't do it. And in fact, there are palliative
methods to eliminate alleviate the worst suffering through what's called
(12:42):
palliative sedation. So somebody is really in an intractable circumstance,
they can be sedated, and that doesn't mean necessarily being
put in a coma. That can mean they ty trate
it and it's adjusted so people can have a better
quality of life. The point is to help people live
until they dying is not dead, Dying is living, and
(13:04):
the point has to be I think as a really
compassionate society, which means to suffer with to care for
people and not kill them.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
What do you think of biotechnology, Wasley?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
I think it is the most powerful scientific breakthrough since
the splitting of the atom. And like the splitting of
the atom, it's a double edged sword that some tremendous
good canon is already coming from biotechnology, but also the
potential for tremendous harm. Let's just talk about the biotech
(13:37):
genetic engineering or genetic editing, a technique called crisp er
CR s p R and crisper. You can scientists can
very easily now change any cell, change any organism, and
so that can lead to hopefully some great cures. Just
(13:59):
as an example, simple sickle cell anemia as a very
painful condition, and crisper a somatic crisper, meaning somebody who's
an adult has actually successfully alleviated a lot of the
pain of that condition through that genetic editing. But it
could also be used to take a bird flu and
(14:21):
turn it into a truly lethal pandemic. So these are
things that I think as the splitting of the atom
requires really strong regulations, and that's what we're not seeing.
What we did see with the splitting of the atom
was international cooperation trying to set very strong limits on
proliferation and so forth, and the differentiating between the peaceful
(14:45):
and wartime use of splitting of the atom. But in
terms of biotech, it's you know, it's the wild, wild West,
and I think that's very concerning Wesley.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Is there any morality to any of this that we've
been talking about.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Well, morality is the only thing that can actually make
any of this work, and I'm afraid that what we
often see in these discussions isn't a true ethical deliberation.
But the question of safety, but ethics goes far beyond safety.
Ethics goes to something right, Is this something even though
(15:21):
we can do it, is it something we should do?
And I don't think we do. We have enough of
that discussion, and frankly, we're at a point I think,
in becoming such an anything goes society that the only
hope we really have is self restraint, and that seems
to be in short supply.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
And welcome back George Norry along with Wesley Smith as
we are talking about the humankind and his websites are
linked up at Coast tocoastam dot com. Wesley I had
mentioned that the twelve jurisdictions have legalized assistant suicide. No
states have legalized youth in Asia. What's the difference between
the two? Can you tell us?
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Yeah, morally, I don't think there is a difference, But
in terms of the discussion, assistant suicide is when somebody
assists in the case you're talking about generally a doctor,
but it's no longer necessarily. A doctor can also be
a nurse practitioner in some states by prescribing poison and
(00:47):
overdose and intentional overdose of drugs for somebody to kill themselves.
They like to call it medical aid and dying made.
That's a euphemism to try to get away from what's
really going on, that a doctor is actually assisting a
patient kill themselves. Euthanasia is when the doctor, again using
(01:10):
the general parlance, does the killing, so it's a homicide.
It's not murder because it's legal in the states. I
mean in the countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium,
and so forth. But it is a homicide where the
doctor is killing as a medical treatment. And that gets
back to the idea of d harm medicine, because when
(01:31):
doctors become killers, it changes the entire way the culture
looks at medicine and also looks at weak and vulnerable people,
ill people and people with disabilities. And it becomes a
different society because it changes your whole mindset, since you
decided as a society once you legalize these things, that
(01:52):
life itself is not an inherent good.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Now, Jackovorkian was a practitioner of euthanasia, Wasn't.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
He both assisted suicide and euthanasia. People might not remember,
but back in the nineties, Jack of Orcian, that's when
I cut my teeth on these issues. He was a
retired pathologist. He'd never actually treated patients outside of medical school,
(02:19):
and after he retired he started He wrote a book
called Prescription Meticide, in which he pushed assisted suicide not
as a means primarily of alleviating suffering, but so that
he could engage in what he called obitiatry that was
in other words human vivisection. He wanted to experiment on
people he was euthanizing, and that was the role, the
(02:41):
goal of his assisted suicide campaign. The media didn't like
to talk about that because the media became in the tank,
in my opinion, for assisted suicide, so they were always
talking about him trying to alleviate suffering. But he said
in his own book that wasn't his primary purpose. Jack
of Orkian, people were flying to Michigan to be assisted
(03:02):
in suicide, most of them were disabled, somewhere terminally ill,
and he would kill them with carbon monoxide in his
rusty van. And yet that was deemed compassion the time
that he moved from assisted suicide, where people would you know,
trigger the carbon monoxide themselves. He euthanized a man named
(03:29):
Thomas Yoke who had Louke Garretts as he's als, and
he filmed himself doing it. And he then took the
film because Jack of Orkin was really about Jack of Orkian,
he took the film to sixty minutes and Mike Wallace,
the late Mike Wallace, was a euthanasia proponent. They put
it on sixty minutes and I'll never forget Mike Wallace
(03:50):
saying to Kivorkian, is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?
And Cavorkian would say, no, he's just sedated. It was
really a horrible thing, but that pushed the endble a
little bit too far, and he was convicted of I
think it was second degree murder and he did about
ten years in jail. And the really to me shameful
thing is that when he got out of prison, he
(04:11):
was getting fifty thousand dollars a speech. Before he became
ill and passed away. Naturally, he said he wouldn't do that,
but he did.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Yeah, he died at the age of eighty three. Did
he enjoyed doing what he was doing.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
I never met him, but I think he did, and
I think he really enjoyed the notoriety he received. Ralph
Nader once said to me that it was a great shame.
And Ralph Nader and I have co authored some books
together and were friends, and he said to me, it
was what a great shame that Jack of Orkian for
a period of time had become the most famous doctor
in the world because he was helping to kill people
(04:48):
with carbon monoxide. And I think Ralph was absolutely correct
about that.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Tell Ralph high for us. He loves our show by the.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Way, I love Ralph.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Canada has legalized youth and nation asn't it Yes?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
And this I think Canada is a real warning sign
for the United States because they are our closest cultural cousins.
Canada legalized lethal injection euthanasia. I think it was twenty fifteen,
and since then they've gone from allowing doctors to kill
the terminally ill who asked for it, to the chronically
(05:22):
ill who asked for it, to people with disabilities who
ask for it, to the frail elderly who ask for it,
and starting in twenty twenty seven, doctors will be allowed
to kill the mentally ill who ask for it. And Canada,
as well as in Netherlands, in Belgium and some other places,
they've conjoined euthanasia with organ harvesting. In fact, in Ontario,
(05:46):
the Province of Ontario, if a patient goes to a
doctor and says I want to be killed, and many
many patients now qualify for that. In fact, the last
year that there was a record fifteen thousand people. More
than fifteen thousand people in Canada were euthanized and it
became the fifth leading cause of death. But in Ontario,
(06:07):
if you go to a doctor and say I want
to be euthanized, and the doctor determines you're qualified, the
doctor will then call the organ procurement organization and tell them, well,
you know, Charlie is going to be dead on Tuesday
the fifteenth, and the organization will then call Charlie and say,
can we have your liver? Can we have your kidney?
It's really turns in some regards. It turns euthanasia turns
(06:32):
people into objects, because once you become killable, you cease
to be necessarily a subject. And let me give you
an example of this. In the Netherlands, there was a
tragic case of a sixteen year old girl who was
diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and before she was going
into the the later stages of her condition, she asked
(06:57):
to be euthanized. And she asked to be euthanized, not
because she was suffering at that time, but because she thought,
if I am euthanized, I can become an organ donor
and I can help other people. Well, as soon as
the doctor said yes, they put her into a thirty
six hour coma. Now the coma wasn't for her benefit.
She ceased to in a sense, be the point. Her
(07:19):
organs became the point. So she was in the coma.
They did the testing necessary and the tissue typing and
so forth to find recipients, and once they found the recipients,
then she was killed and her organs taken. This is
the kind of thing that can happen in euthanasia. Here's
another story from Canada during the COVID crisis. A elderly woman,
(07:44):
as happened to too many elderly people, including my late
mother in law, woman was isolated because of the COVID restrictions.
The isolation was lifted, and then there was going to
be a second time where people weren't going to be
able to see her. Her family wasn't going to be
able to visit her, so she asked to be euthanized.
(08:08):
And the deep irony, George, was that while they wouldn't
allow her to be with her so she could live,
they allowed them to be with her when she was killed.
So this is the kind of thing you see repeatedly,
and in Canada, you see people being euthanized because they
can't obtain proper medical care. Oncologists, for example, there have
(08:31):
been a couple of cancer patients that have been reported
in the news that were euthanized, not because they wanted
to be, but because it would take nine months to
get an oncologist. And euthanasia, when it becomes widely accepted
and normalized, can become a substitute for caring for people,
let's say, expensive conditions or extreme conditions. So these things
(08:53):
are very dangerous. Now. Many people in the United States
will say, well, we haven't gone that far, and that's true,
we haven't gone that far yet. But there is a
road that you start down, and it's a logical progression.
Once you decide that killing is an acceptable answer to
human suffering, and once you do that, the kind of
suffering that justifies the killing eventually expands. And the strict
(09:16):
guidelines that we often hear about to protect against abuse,
as soon as the law is passed and it becomes
legal and it starts to become normalized, the guidelines that
were deemed protections are now called obstacles and barriers to
a good death. And so you see the progression. Even
in the United States, you begin to see now loosening
(09:39):
of restrictions, doing away with residency requirements, assisted suicide in
some states by telemedicine and this kind of thing. So
it's a very dangerous road we are on in the
West with regard to this issue, and I think people
get very caught up in the idea, well, I don't
want to suffer. Well, of course nobody does. People aren't
(10:01):
being killed, according to the statistics in Canada, in Oregon,
in the Netherlands, because of pain very few. Most of
the people who are asking for these conditions or these
terminations do so because of existential issues, and they're very important,
but they can be handled like fear of being a burden,
(10:24):
fear of losing dignity, fear of being unable to enjoy
certain activities and so forth, and those are important. And
I would also hasten to add that in a society
that's supposed to be anti suicide, people who ask for
assisted suicide or euthanasia, depending on where one lives, don't
receive suicide prevention services. And yet studies have shown that
(10:49):
even terminally ill people, if they receive proper care, often
might become suicidal and then are very happy they changed
their minds. In fact, when hospice was first started, Dame
Cecily Saunder's a great medical humanitarian who started the modern
hospice movement. One of the key points in hospice at
the time was suicide prevention if someone was suicidal. But
(11:13):
the assisted suicide movement has compromised many hospices, not all,
and some participate in assisted suicide, which is a complete
rejection of Dame Cecily's philosophy.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Are there any conditions that you would support assisted suicide
or euthanasia?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
No, because you can't limit it to the most extreme conditions,
and no law in effect in the world today does.
They will for example, terminllness six months to live. Well,
recent studies showed that that's a very unreliable projection. Doctors
don't necessarily know who has six months to live, and
(11:54):
we've seen even in Oregon, in some of the states,
people have lived for more than two or three years
after receiving the lethal prescription. It's just not a door
you can open. What we need to do is provide
care for people. We need to have significant interventions, make
sure people are not isolated, and so forth. And I
(12:17):
don't think there is any way to pass a law
that can maybe help that one or two alleviate that
very rare condition. They can't. Where you can't alleviate suffering,
you can't do it. And in fact, there are palliative
methods to eliminate alleviate the worst suffering through what's called
(12:42):
palliative sedation. So somebody is really in an intractable circumstance,
they can be sedated, and that doesn't mean necessarily being
put in a coma. That can mean they ty trate
it and it's adjusted so people can have a better
quality of life. The point is to help people live
until they dying is not dead, Dying is living, and
(13:04):
the point has to be I think as a really
compassionate society, which means to suffer with to care for
people and not kill them.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
What do you think of biotechnology, Wasley?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
I think it is the most powerful scientific breakthrough since
the splitting of the atom. And like the splitting of
the atom, it's a double edged sword that some tremendous
good canon is already coming from biotechnology, but also the
potential for tremendous harm. Let's just talk about the biotech
(13:37):
genetic engineering or genetic editing, a technique called crisp er
CR s p R and crisper. You can scientists can
very easily now change any cell, change any organism, and
so that can lead to hopefully some great cures. Just
(13:59):
as an example, simple sickle cell anemia as a very
painful condition, and crisper a somatic crisper, meaning somebody who's
an adult has actually successfully alleviated a lot of the
pain of that condition through that genetic editing. But it
could also be used to take a bird flu and
(14:21):
turn it into a truly lethal pandemic. So these are
things that I think as the splitting of the atom
requires really strong regulations, and that's what we're not seeing.
What we did see with the splitting of the atom
was international cooperation trying to set very strong limits on
proliferation and so forth, and the differentiating between the peaceful
(14:45):
and wartime use of splitting of the atom. But in
terms of biotech, it's you know, it's the wild, wild West,
and I think that's very concerning Wesley.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Is there any morality to any of this that we've
been talking about.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Well, morality is the only thing that can actually make
any of this work, and I'm afraid that what we
often see in these discussions isn't a true ethical deliberation.
But the question of safety, but ethics goes far beyond safety.
Ethics goes to something right, Is this something even though
(15:21):
we can do it, is it something we should do?
And I don't think we do. We have enough of
that discussion, and frankly, we're at a point I think,
in becoming such an anything goes society that the only
hope we really have is self restraint, and that seems
to be in short supply.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.