Kenneth Burke's characterization of constitutions effectively describes the customs and values that are lived within a community, and he has well charted the dialectical process which such constitutions undergo when they actually submit to change. In this paper, the totality of thematically-relevant discursive events which arise during periods of constitutional amending are referred to, building from Bitzer, as a rhetorical situation. Using Bitzer alongside Burke, it will be shown that Jack Kevorkian's rhetorical intent, as expressed in his writings and public statements, is distinct from the rhetorical situation to which he has been assigned, illustrating the significant discrepancy between the would-be rhetorical utterances of a speaker and those utterances which have rhetorical impact. The argument will show how Kevorkian's intention to popularize obitiatry contrasts with his public image as a champion of physician-assisted dying.