Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Sunday 26th June 2016 at 2:05am
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.
Neonatal deaths under Dutch Groningen Protocol very rare despite misinformation contagion
Author(s)
Neil Francis
Journal
Journal of Assisted Dying, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–19.
Abstract
The Groningen Protocol specifies criteria for the potential termination of life in severely ill newborns in extremis with untreatable and unrelievable conditions. In September 2006 the Netherlands formally adopted a Regulation incorporating the Protocol. Despite the Regulation’s development through extensive professional consultation, endorsement by the Dutch Paediatric Association, empirical data showing a decrease rather than increase in use, and research showing that neonatal euthanasia occurs around the world in the absence of regulation, the Dutch Regulation has sparked controversy. More recently it has been claimed that hundreds of babies a year are killed under its provisions. Forensic analysis reveals the claim to be comprehensively and evidentially false. Wide online dissemination of the claim by mostly religious sources demonstrates confirmation bias and misinformation contagion.
Francis, N 2016, 'Neonatal deaths under Dutch Groningen Protocol very rare despite misinformation contagion', Journal of Assisted Dying, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-19.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Sunday 14th June 2015 at 4:13pm
The Council of Europe chamber in session.
On the 25th January 2012, the Council of Europe passed declaration 1859 on advance care planning. Immediately, lobbyists opposed to assisted dying loudly proclaimed that the resolution banned euthanasia across Europe, when it did nothing of the sort. What actually happened?
Declaration 1859 on advance care planning
The Strasbourg-based Council of Europe passed declaration 1859 on 25th January 2012. The declaration was about advance care planning, which allows patients to inform others about what treatments they would or wouldn't want if they become unable to participate in treatment decision-making.
The declaration made the explicit point that it was about advance care planning and not about euthanasia or assisted suicide. It made the point that non-voluntary euthanasia is unacceptable—that is, that others should not make death-hastening decisions about a person for their 'alleged benefit'. This is an important point on which both sides of the assisted dying debate can agree.
Council of Europe resolutions are informative to members, but are not binding.
Misstatements by opponents of assisted dying
Despite this simplicity and clarity, the very next day after the vote, a host of conservative religious organisations and commentators began trumpeting that "the Council of Europe banned euthanasia across Europe." It started with the Catholic Church (through its online service Zenit) and sprinted right around the world in a matter of days—even appearing eventually in a professional journal paper two and a half years later.
What really happened: the evidence
But no matter how often and how loudly lobbyists try to claim that the Council of Europe banned euthanasia across europe, it did nothing of the sort.
Read the forensic analysis of the misinformation trail in the F files, here.
Newsletter/release Posted on Sunday 14th June 2015 at 3:51pm
MEDIA RELEASE — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — 5 JUN 2015
Veteran assisted-dying campaigner Mr Neil Francis has announced the launch of a new website, whose purpose is to provide rigorous and reliable information about assisted dying, and to expose misinformation for what it is.
Mr Neil Francis, a former President of the World Federation of Right To Die Societies, and founding past Chairman and CEO of Australian alliance YourLastRight.com, has today announced the launch of a new website, DyingForChoice.com. The website will provide authentic and valid information about assisted dying law reform. The overwhelming majority of citizens want the right to choose a peaceful death hastened with the help of their doctor if they face the torture of a terminal illness, yet the option remains illegal.
"It's critical that the community, and especially politicians who will decide on law reform on behalf of the people, are properly informed," he said. "Currently, politicians and the media are inundated with misinformation that paints a false and bleak picture of the reform."
Mr Francis, who holds one of the world's largest specialist literature collections on assisted dying research and related topics, says that he plans to redress the balance. "Not only will I provide solid evidence backed by reliable sources, but I will clearly expose information that is incorrect, and identify the source of the incorrect information where that is known," he said.
Mr Francis gave an example of mistaken information he had already exposed. In a public debate at the University of Tasmania in August 2011, he pointed out to the audience that the Australian Family Association's website 'HOPE', operated by Mr Paul Russell, contained a page incorrectly stating that the Oregon Death With Dignity Act had caused 'suicide contagion'. Mr Francis showed the audience (and Mr Russell, who was debating opposite) Oregon government suicide data demonstrating that this statement was completely at odds with the evidence.
"And yet," said Mr Francis, "that misinformation stayed published on Mr Russell's website for a long time."
In September 2013, South Australian MPs were considering a voluntary euthanasia Bill. Mr Francis sent the MPs a video pointing out among other things the HOPE claim about Oregon suicide contagion and showing why it was wrong.
Only after this, said Mr Francis, did the offending claim disappear from the HOPE website.
"Yet this and many other invalid claims are made repeatedly around the world. While we can respect a person's personal and private opposition to assisted dying law reform, misinformation will now be rigorously highlighted and corrected," he said.
If you no longer wish to receive our media releases, you may unsubcribehere.
The F filesPosted on Tuesday 2nd June 2015 at 4:33pm
The Council of Europe chamber in session.
Here’s a clear example of mistaken information (misinformation) — more commonly known as ‘bull’ — published by conservative opponents of assisted dying law reform. In this case, lobbyists and commentators misreport by fudge: by cherry-picking and repositioning a declaration of the Council of Europe, asserting that it ‘banned euthanasia' throughout Europe.
It did nothing of the sort. So what actually happened?
In 2011, the Council’s Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee conducted a study called “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients.” Its purpose was to make recommendations about advance care directives, and enduring powers of attorney—also known in some jurisdictions as guardianship. These are preferences, documented in advance by a person, which help ensure his or her healthcare wishes are respected and honoured at times when the person can’t currently decide and speak for him or herself. The Committee’s report was handed down as Document 12804.
Wednesday January 25th 2012
On January 25th 2012, declaration 1859 regarding the Committee’s report came before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) for consideration and a vote.
After most delegates had left the very lengthy session, some remaining delegates moved an amendment to the declaration. While it was procedurally their right to do so, they made the attempt only when some five sixths (268 of 318) of their Council colleagues were absent.
“an unlikely alliance of the Catholic Church and evangelicals like Pat Robertson who is behind the European Centre for Law and Justice.”
As a result, a statement mentioning euthanasia was added to the original declaration and was passed by (a tiny) vote.
You can read the entire declaration here. It’s less than two pages.
Now, what the declaration has to say about ‘euthanasia’ appears exclusively in Clause 5, and Clause 5 says in its entirety:
“5. This resolution is not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited. This resolution thus limits itself to the question of advance directives, living wills and continuing powers of attorney.”
Notice that the clause contains exactly and only three short sentences.
The first sentence is explicit and unambiguous: the declaration is not about euthanasia or assisted suicide.
The second sentence makes it abundantly clear that hastened-dying decisions made by persons other than the patient themselves but alleged to be (i.e. by others) for a ‘dependent’ patient’s ‘benefit’ are unacceptable. Declaring against such non-voluntary euthanasia is a fundamental principle on which both sides of the assisted dying debate can agree. The resolution does not speak against voluntary euthanasia: that is, when a competent patient chooses assisted dying for themselves.
The third sentence reiterates clearly that the declaration deals only with advance directives ('living wills') and continuing powers of attorney (persons granted the legal power to make decisions consistent with the advance directive). Note that the declaration wording does not even speak against assisted dying options within advance directives where permissible by law (e.g. as in the Netherlands), because these are made voluntarily by a competent patient on their own behalf and not by someone else for some 'alleged benefit’.
So, the declaration is not in conflict in any way with the laws of member states which already have assisted dying laws. Nor does it preclude other member states from introducing assisted dying laws.
Indeed, the declaration is not in conflict because the adoption of declarations by each member state is voluntary. It is incorrect to represent in any way that a Council of Europe declaration is a ‘determination,’ ‘ruling,’ ‘ban,’ ‘prohibition’ or other form of obligation upon its members.
But don’t just take my word for it.
Dr Stephen Latham, Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Bioethics at Yale University, states unequivocally in his blog on bioethics:
“… it’s a mistake to report it [the declaration] as a condemnation of assisted suicide, or to anticipate that it will have strong effect on pending cases involving assisted suicide.”
Dr Latham rightly points directly to the explicit declaration statement that it “is not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide." He further affirms that the European Court for Human Rights (a court of the Council of Europe) has held that Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects the individual’s choice to avoid a painful and undignified death.
So, despite the clarity of the declaration, how long did it take for opponents of assisted dying to publish mistaken information about it?
Thursday January 26th 2012
Within mere hours of the vote, cherry-picked bull began charging around the globe.
Bolting energetically out of the paddock was the Catholic online newspaper promoting Vatican opinion, Zenit. Proclaiming jubilantly, “Anti-euthanasia ruling hailed as major victory”, Zenit stumbled at the first hurdle of truthfulness —the declaration was not, in any sense, a ‘ruling,’ nor called for a blanket “prohibition of euthanasia” as its lead paragraph states.[1]
Off to a similarly agile start was Dr Grégor Puppinck, Director General of the conservative Christian lobby group the European Center of Law & Justice — who you will remember David Pollock described above as in an alliance with the Catholic Church and others. Published on the Catholic Family-backed Turtle Bay and Beyond blog, this article was wrongly titled “Major victory for life in Europe: euthanasia must always be prohibited.”[2]
For good measure, Dr Puppinck’s opinion piece, complete with alternate headline “Victory: Council of Europe adopts resolution against euthanasia”, was published the same day on the USA Christian/Catholic pro-life website LifeNews.com.[3]
Similarly, Christian/Catholic pro-life website LifeSiteNews.com's John Westen published a piece the same day titled "Major victory for life in Europe: ‘Euthanasia must always be prohibited'".[4]
Also on the same day, the conservative European think tank European Dignity Watch’s headline likewise cherry-picked words from the declaration: “Council of Europe bans euthanasia”.[5]
Wasting no time, the Swedish Christian “Yes To Life” group trumpeted the mistruth “Council of Europe prevents euthanasia in Europe!” (The Council of Europe would be very talented indeed if it could actually “prevent euthanasia across Europe".)[6]
Canadian Alex Schadenberg’s Euthanasia Prevention Coalition also repeated the same cherry-picked nonsense with the headline “Council of Europe states that: ‘Euthanasia must always be prohibited.’”[7]
Friday January 27th 2012
Well-known UK Catholic journalist Simon Caldwell was only a shade slower out of the blocks just one day later. His article’s headline in UK’s Daily Mail rates a comprehensive fail for saying “Euthanasia ‘must always be prohibited’, rules Council of Europe.”[8]
Saturday 28th January 2012
Another day later and the UK Telegraph republished the story, misstating “Assisted suicide should be illegal through Europe, human rights body rules.”[9] (While this article had no by-line, its copy was remarkably identical to Simon Caldwell’s pieces in the Daily Mail [above] and UK Catholic Herald [below]. Caldwell is a known writer for the Telegraph.)
Monday 30th January 2012
Simon Caldwell followed up with the same article in the UK Catholic Herald, again with a false headline “Euthanasia should be banned across Europe, rules Council.”[10]
Also on 30th January, Catholic-founded Australian Family Association's Paul Russel uncritically republished Alex Schadenberg’s opinion piece on their anti-voluntary euthanasia campaign site “HOPE”.[11]
Tuesday 31st January 2012
Not to be outdone, the next day the Patients Rights Council (formerly the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide), an anti-euthanasia lobby group consisting essentially of two people (Rita Marker and Wesley Smith), uncritically summarised Simon Caldwell’s Daily Mail opinion piece.[12]
Wednesday February 1st 2012
On February 1st the polemic was republished in CathNews in Australia, with false headline “Council of Europe says ban euthanasia.”[13]
The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney republished on its youth engagement website xt3, with the headline “Euthanasia should be banned across Europe, rules Council.”[14]
Friday February 3rd 2012
By February 3rd, the Church of England Newspaper had jumped on the bandwagon, misstating “Council of Europe assemby [sic] calls for ban on euthanasia.”[15]
So did the Scottish Catholic Observer with an extra dose of hyperbole: “European human rights body rules that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be banned in every country on the continent.”[16]
No wonder Yale University’s Dr Latham mused dryly in his blog:
“… a number of different publicationsare mistakenly alleging that PACE has called for a permanent ban on assisted suicide.”
September 19th 2012
Later in the year I was kindly invited to speak at a Brisbane public forum on the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia hosted by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. Mr Yuri Koszarycz, then recently retired lecturer in bioethics, ethics and church history from Australian Catholic University, spoke for the opposing position. Given the audience were paying to listen to our respective pearls of wisdom, it was paramount that our material be properly researched and backed by good evidence.
Yet Mr Koszarycz dropped the “R” bomb (amongst others) in his presentation: yes, he asserted that the Council of Europe had ‘ruled’ against euthanasia, when it clearly had not.
July 17th 2014
Dr Grégor Puppinck (remember, he’s Director General of the European Center of Law & Justice) makes another appearance, this time as the lead author of a paper published in the International Journal of Human Rights[17]. In it, he rails against his perception that when reviewing cases of assisted suicide, the European Court of Human Rights ‘ignores’ Council of Europe declaration 1859. To support his argument, he quotes the single sentence “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited” (p 746).
The paper’s discussion quite omits the two crucial, framing sentences, so a reader unfamiliar with the declaration’s original text would not know that it said it is “not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide” and that it is about “living wills and continuing powers of attorney”. No wonder the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t believe that declaration 1859 is crucial when considering cases of assisted suicide: declaration 1859 is about advance care planning!
Indeed, a reader of the journal article could be forgiven for wrongly deducing, on the basis of the only sentence quoted by authors Puppinck and de la Hougue, that the Council had ‘banned euthanasia’. It most certainly had not.
Conclusion
So let’s recap what happened. The primary facts are:
The Council of Europe passed a declaration (#1859) about advance care planning—not about euthanasia or assisted suicide (it explicitly said it wasn't).
The declaration spoke only against non-voluntaryeuthanasia (NVE)—not against voluntary euthanasia (VE) about which it contained no statement of any kind.
Council declarations are in no way 'rulings', 'bans' or 'prohibitions' on its members because member adoption is entirely voluntary.
Yet despite the clarity of the declaration, quite a number of anti-euthanasia lobby groups and commentators, commencing the very next day and starting with the Catholic Church (through Zenit) and the European Centre for Law and Justice, published editorials mistakenly stating that the Council of Europe had ‘banned euthanasia': in other words, spreading bull.
A question that could be asked is this: how did it happen that so many anti-euthanasia individuals and groups published misstatements so closely together in both interpretation and in time?
[17] Puppinck, G & de La Hougue, C 2014, 'The right to assisted suicide in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights', International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 18, no. 7-8, pp. 735-755.
News reportPosted on Friday 29th May 2015 at 8:24am
Last weekend in Adelaide, Australia, delegates from around the world congregated at a conference convened by Paul Russell's group, "HOPE". The conference's purpose was to share information in opposition to assisted dying law reform. It was held in Adelaide partly because it is described as the 'virtual epicenter' of moves to legalise voluntary euthanasia. That's a great credit to Frances Coombe and her team at the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, who work tirelessly towards reform that the overwhelming majority of citizens want.
But here's the rub. Despite being an international conference with a public website advertising its value and program, it was open only to "anyone who opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide."
How curious.
When I chaired the global World Federation of Right To Die Societies conference in Melbourne, Australia in 2010, of course we had closed sessions for our people. That's natural and proper.
But we also had a full day of sessions open to the public. Plenty of opponents attended.
Not only that, but I also ensured that a range of voices were heard in the official program, too. Father Bill Uren, naturally opposed from the viewpoint of the Catholic tradition, was gracious enough to participate in a panel discussion. There was of course lively debate, and, I am pleased to say, all conducted with courtesy despite the differences of perspective.
All good, open and healthy stuff.
So the question is, why did the anti-euthanasia delegates in Adelaide feel it necessary to conduct their entire conference in secret? Were they scared of a range of views? Might there have been misinformation that could be challenged? Some other reason?
VideoPosted on Saturday 21st September 2013 at 5:45pm
Opponents of assisted dying law reform often invoke fictional slippery slopes as objections to law reform. In this video, Neil Francis gives three examples of supposed slippery slopes argued by opponents, explains why they are fictional, and shares the perspectives of several recognised experts from the USA state of Oregon about their Death With Dignity law which has been in effect since 1997. Three long-time Oregonian Death With Dignity Act opponents also admit there's no cause-and-effect relationship established between law reform and supposed slippery slopes.
This is the second of three videos sent to South Australian MPs in 2013.
