Schadenberg-Russell desperate hyperbole

0
Schadenberg and Russell falsely call the Oregon Medical Association the "assisted suicide lobby" in contradiction of the facts.

Last week, Alex Schadenberg wrote—and Paul Russell republished—another nonsense article, this time about medical associations going neutral on assisted dying. They opine that there is no such thing as neutrality. And start out by getting their facts wrong... again.

Got the facts wrong yet again, lads

Messers Schadenberg and Russell claim that the Oregon Medical association is an "assisted suicide lobby" group. Had they bothered to check the rudimentary facts before sounding off, they would have known that the Oregon Medical Association remains neutral toward assisted dying. It reconfirmed its neutral stance as recently as early this month. It does not hold a 'supportive' stance.

How did Schadenberg and Russell come to their conclusion?

American Medical Association AGM

They refer to a motion that the Oregon Medical Association put to the recent annual general meeting of the American Medical Association. The motion sought to establish a process by which the American Medical Association would consult in order to re-evaluate its opposed stance to assisted dying, given that assisted dying is legal in a number of USA States and there are already many doctors who in good conscience provide assistance to die to qualifying patients.

Heavy-handed partisanship

In their usual style of heavy-handed partisanship, Schadenberg and Russell describe the Oregon motion as the "assisted suicide lobby" applying "pressure" to the American Medical Association.

They fail to level the same criticism at another group, the Louisiana Medical Society who put another motion to the meeting. The Louisiana motion sought to expressly confirm and entrench the American Medical Association's currently opposed stance. Schadenberg and Russell fail to criticize the Louisiana motion as "pressure," despite the fact that Oregon's motion was for open consultation, while Louisiana's was for a closed position.

Good sense prevails

In fact, they don't mention the Louisiana motion at all. Why? Because wiser heads prevailed at the national conference. The Louisiana motion was defeated and the Oregon motion was passed as I reported last week.

Desperate hyperbole

Schadenberg and Russell then desperately argue that you can only support or oppose assisted dying. There is no neutral, they say.

In the language of 'influence' we call this rhetoric "the sucker's choice." You put up just two options and demand folks pick one or the other.

"You're either for us or agin us!"

No other options, no nuances, no consideration of different options for different folks. Hardly the kind of stuff that would pass even a junior high school debate.

Back to the real world

Of course it's possible to be neutral.

Individually, a doctor may be personally opposed to assisted dying, but appreciate that another doctor, having equally examined their conscience, may support choice. Thus, the first doctor opposes for themselves but remains neutral to the position of other doctors. Indeed, an individual doctor may neither support nor oppose choice.

Collectively, it makes sense for a professional medical body to hold a neutral stance. How can it justify respecting the deeply-held beliefs and values of some of its members at the same time as explicitly disrespecting other members' views that are as closely examined and deeply held?

Conclusion

The best that opponents running the global charge against assisted dying can do is to first get their facts wrong (again), develop their false assumptions into shrill hyperbole, and then try to press the false dichotomy of a "suckers choice" into doing some heavy lifting: an exercise that falls flat on its face.

The evidence is crystal clear: they provide no real argument at all.


Share This Post:

Latest news

19th June 2016 09:03pm 0

Canadian Parliament passes assisted dying law

The Canadian Parliament has passed a law that allows the terminally ill to choose assisted dying in restricted circumstances.