Rhetoric

0
Research results must be judged in relation to the study's methodology.

In his latest blog, titled “Who are you going to trust?”, anti-assisted dying lobbyist Mr Paul Russell says:

“Polling noted today in the Australian shows a significant level of distrust in our political classes to get the issue of euthanasia and assisted dying right.”

He then goes on to quote some select statistics from said poll. In his blog, he mentions nothing about the sponsorship or conduct of the poll. After some searching, I found no other reference to said poll on his ‘HOPE’ website.

This is rather curious, because The Australian article he quotes, points out that the ‘poll’ was commissioned by him (his website is called ‘HOPE’).

Thus, Mr Russell tries to add credibility to his ‘poll results’ in his blog by citing only that it has been reported in a national newspaper. This ‘quote-someone-else-so-it-must-be-authoritative’ rhetorical strategy has been used before by opponents of assisted dying (see Box at end).

But as Mr Russell has himself promoted — happily republishing the opinion of the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship (UK) — “opinion polls add up to very little.” That’s quite true… when they’re poorly designed and run, including the big no-no, ‘push-polling’, in which the researcher attempts to get the answer they want by crafting questions more likely to get it.

I searched hard for any reference to the methodology of said ‘poll’, but was unable to identify any despite a diligent search. Therefore, we don’t know what approach Mr Russell took: robust or otherwise.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument (and the absence of public evidence) that a poll of some kind was actually conducted. If it were a truly legitimate poll, you’d think that Mr Russell would be shouting about the study from his own rooftop (the ‘HOPE’ website). But so far, he hasn’t.

Mr Russell, while quoting statistics, has said absolutely nothing about the methodology — that I can find via a quite diligent search.

Results can only be interpreted in light of how the research was actually conducted, so quoting a 'study' while failing to publish its methodology in full is an absolute no-no. It only invites derision.

Rebecca Urban, for The Australian, quotes a number of ‘statistics’ from the ‘poll’ seemingly without question. But she’s hardly to blame: she’s skilled at journalism, not primary research.

So, for the benefit of Paul Russell, Rebecca Urban and all journalists reporting claimed statistics, here’s your minimum standard of conduct if the public are not to guffaw at the claims. All reported results must be in relation to properly disclosed methodology:

  • Who commissioned the research? (✔ Ms Urban reports who)
  • Who conducted — actually carried out — the research (e.g. a reputable research company)?
  • What precise population were respondents drawn from, how were they recruited, and screened in or out? What were the counts and percentage participation (approached/participated)?
  • What were the dates of the fieldwork?
  • What procedures were used to establish and maintain the authenticity of who was sampled (e.g. if an online poll, could people from anywhere technically participate in this Victorian poll)?
  • How was the questionnaire administered (e.g. paper self-complete, online, CATI)?
  • What was the script of stimuli administered to respondents? In other words, what prompts were given and what questions were asked: exact order and wording?
  • What results were obtained for each question (i.e. full rather than selective crosstabs)?
     

Until Mr Russell publishes in full how his ‘poll’ was conducted, the only honourable course of action for him to pursue is to withdraw the claimed results.

Until then, we can only see them as untrustworthy and a bit of a joke.

 

Rhetorical tactic — “Not” quoting yourself

This rhetorical tactic is also used by Mr Russell’s fellow Catholic, Prof. Margaret Somerville. For example, in her 2015 book Bird on an Ethics Wire, in relation to the supposed (but fanciful) fear of being euthanized in the Netherlands if adequate pain management is accepted, Somerville says in Chapter 4:

It has been alleged that Dutch physicians have interpreted patients’ consent to pain management as consent to euthanasia.38

If you’re like most people, you’d assume, given the effort of a citation (38), that an independent source had made the statement based on some evidence. Indeed, if you look at reference 38 you’ll see that the author is Lauren Vogel, and the source article is in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. All sounds like solid, legit stuff, doesn’t it?

However, Ms Vogel is a journalist, not a Dutch medic or a researcher, and what she reports in relation to Somerville’s claim is merely a quote of what someone said. And who is that someone? Why, it’s Margaret Somerville — what a coincidence!

Somerville could have just said “I’ve argued this before…”, but instead gives a seemingly robust reference to a source that has the appearance of independence and scholarship. Yet obviously she knows that the source is merely herself saying so.

Let’s be clear: something is not true just because someone alleges it. Even if they allege it twice or more. And happen cite themselves via someone else in the process.


Share This Post:
0
The Age reports a 'gloves off' campaign of misinformation

Both the Herald Sun and The Age reported last week that religious anti-assisted dying crusaders are running a 'gloves off' campaign in Victoria.

Religious forces are gathering once again to attempt to thwart the views of the great majority of Victorians in favour of assisted dying law reform.

Matt Johnston in the Herald Sun quoted Paul Russell, a long-term figure in Catholic circles, and Greek Orthodox Bishop Ezekiel, in statements against assisted dying.

Farrah Thomazin in The Age quoted religious stalwarts Margaret Tighe of Right To Life, and the Australian Christian Lobby, in further statements against assisted dying.

The crux of the story is that 'pollsters' claim to have run a survey in Victoria. They refuse to be identified. They refuse to publish their methodology. And they refuse to publish all their results. Enough said.

They cherry-pick an item from their supposed poll to claim that 33% of Victorians who oppose assisted dying will change their vote against a supporting politician at the next election. They neglect to mention that only a tiny minority of Victorians actually oppose assisted dying. Their analysis is astonishingly superficial, even assuming they ran a proper, robust poll and didn't manufacture the numbers themselves.

They then use this tidbit of 'data' to put the fear of electoral defeat into politicians who will soon to face an assisted dying Bill in the Victorian Parliament.

What rubbish. Assisted dying (AD) opponents seem to be utterly shameless in misrepresenting and distorting cherry-picked data to push their religious agenda — which they pretend isn't religious.

The real situation in respect of AD is the exact opposite of their claims as I show in a proper, robust analysis of legitimate data, demonstrating that:

  • A massive 78.9% of Victorians support AD, with only a tiny 8.1% opposed. Strong supporters outnumber strong opponents by more than ten to one.
  • Significantly more supporters of AD believe that law reform is personally important, than opponents believe the status quo (no law) is personally important.
  • At a general election, far more Victorian voters will punish Members who oppose the AD Bill than will punish Members who support it (3.5 to 1 overall, 2.4 to 1 for the Liberal/National Coalition and 6.6 to 1 for Labor).
  • The co-sponsors of Victoria’s 2008 AD Bill were returned with greatly increased majorities (including relative to their party’s overall performance) despite campaigns against them by anti-AD crusaders.

 

You can read the full analysis here.

So that Victorian politicians are not misled, I have forwarded my report to the Victorian Government's Cabinet and other selected members of Parliament.

The only way in which this campaign could be called 'gloves-off' is that opponents, lurking around with their shadowy misinformation, don't want to get bullshit on their mittens. Hands seem to be much easier to wash. And hide.


Share This Post:
0
Mr Steve Jalsevac of the Catholic LifeSiteNews blog who made a shocking and vile attack.

I recently exposed (another) piece of misinformation published by LifeSiteNews, and wrote courteously to them to request withdrawal of the offending article. While I wasn’t hopeful the request would be accepted, I wasn’t prepared for the shocking and vile response I received.

Exposing bull about assisted dying is a key purpose of DyingForChoice.com and it will continue to do so as long as bull is published or publicly spoken, and especially when it makes claims or generates innuendo that is at odds with the readily-available facts, as a smokescreen for fundamentally religious objections.

The specific request to withdraw

In a recent article I factually rebutted the allegation by Mr Brad Mattes that there is suicide contagion (from assisted dying to general suicide) in Belgium, in addition to other statements that were wrong in fact in his opinion piece published by LifeSiteNews. I wrote a courteous letter to the editor of LifeSiteNews to point out the errors and to seek withdrawal of the article. 

My full email to LifeSiteNews

Dear LifeSiteNews,

Clearly we are on different sides of the assisted dying conversation. I’m sure that we can mutually appreciate that different people bring different perspectives and apply some largesse in terms of world views.

However, one must draw the line (as your primary Principle does and upon which I think we agree) at the publication of information, however accidental, on your website that is in places fundamentally misleading and elsewhere quite false.

In this regard may I request that you withdraw the article by Mr Brad Mattes, Assisted suicide no longer just for the terminally ill, that contains multiple errors of evidential fact as well as fundamentally misleading statements, as I point out in this post?

Kind regards
Neil Francis

 

The shocking response

A firm believer in courteous debate even when one disagrees profoundly on important matters, I thought the most likely outcome would be a polite letter declining my request. But I received instead this response from LifeSiteNews Managing Director, Mr Steve Jalsevac.

Full response by Mr Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews

Dear Neil,

I find it somewhat amusing that an advocate for legislation to allow people to kill themselves is demanding that we withdraw an article for supposedly publishing "misleading" or "false" information.

After many years of covering organizations such as yours which, typically cruelly manipulate vulnerable persons, violate or liberally interpret laws, understate their longer term objectives, have an extremely unhealthy and dangerous satisfaction in personally seeing people die before their eyes before their natural time, devastate family members whose loved ones had, unknown to them, been guided to kill themselves, and who have such perverse and wrong views on Christian beliefs and much more, I find it despicable that you would be so concerned about supposed accuracy. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the very worst kind. 

It is our view that you should be behind bars for what you advocate and for your dangerous manipulation of vulnerable persons.

I realize that you will not agree with anything that I write given how blinded your conscience and intellect have become by your death preoccupation. So, I just conclude that your claims, views and interpretations are all rejected because no one should trust anything that you say or do on this subject.

Steve Jalsevac
LifeSite

 

Who is LifeSiteNews, anyway?

LifeSiteNews is an online blog established by the conservative Christian Campaign for Life Coalition. It promotes that it “emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles.” Its principles are all very courteously worded and sound ‘respectful” (its principles expressly use that word several times) whilst indicating that it is a pro-life blog.

I’ve read its articles on assisted dying for several years and have not found a single one that is at odds with the position of the Vatican. That’s hardly surprising.

LifeSiteNews publishes a significant proportion of articles about the Catholic Church, as is its right. It is also the sole publisher of Faithful Insight, in its own words “hard-hitting,” “100% faithful” and “fearless Catholic news coverage from the Vatican and beyond.” I argue strongly for the right to publish material of faith. That is not a source of complaint. (Fair disclosure—I’m agnostic.)

faithfulinsightads.jpg
LifeSiteNews' hard-hitting and 100% Catholic-faithful publication.

And, Mr Jalsevac gives a clear indication that he’s at the 'Old School' end of the Catholic spectrum. He admires in multiple blogs the writings of conservative African Catholic Bishop Robert Sarah, noting John Paul II’s teachings as “definitive” and expressing disappointment in the current Pope. And that's entirely his right I again affirm.

Mr Jalsevac’s editor-in-chief, Mr John-Henry Westen has also published a number of articles critical of Pope Francis, also referring to previous Popes as more authoritative.

What do they claim to stand for?

LifeSiteNews’ first principle, in full, is this:

1. Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre.”—LifeSiteNews.com

Mr Jalsevac's response highlights these claimed priciples in stark relief by comprehensively breaching them.

Additionally, not only have I pointed out multiple falsehoods and inaccuracies in Mattes’ article, but I’ve reported LifeSiteNews previously for implying in a splashy headline that the Council of Europe had determined that “euthanasia must always be prohibited” (it most certainly did not), and publishing false information in multiple articles claiming that as many as 650 babies are or could be euthanized in the Netherlands (no they aren’t).

The ad hominem attack

The statements Mr Jalsevac makes about me are vile. And false. While I’m calling out his blogs’ misinformation for what it is, he’s calling for me personally to be thrown in jail for sins he falsely thinks I’ve committed. That’s squarely known as the ad hominem attack: attacking the person rather than the argument. It conveniently provides him with the excuse to totally ignore solid evidence that contradicts his beliefs.

Interestingly, an article by LifeSiteNews Editor Mr Westen quotes Pope Francis as saying,

We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation…”—Pope Francis.

Quite.

Conclusion

LifeSiteNews is an 'Old School' Catholic blog, and, I argue, has every right to be.

However, it has demonstrated by publishing multiple articles containing serious errors of fact as well as highly misleading statements, and by a gratuitous ad hominem attack on someone pointing this out, that it is not interested in evidence, reason or even civility as it claims. In my view it has unambiguously demonstrated itself to be a biased and unreliable Catholic source on matters of assisted dying.

I will continue to call out misinformation in LifeSiteNews when I see it.


Share This Post:
0
Mrs Inga Peulich of the Victorian Parliament.

Mrs Inga Peulich is MLC for the Victorian state region of South-Eastern Metropolitan and is Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs and for Scrutiny of Government. She is a member of the Parliament's Legal and Social Issues Committee, which recently recommended assisted dying law reform.

She has previously made clear her personal opposition toward assisted dying law reform. It's no surprise then that she wrote a minority report against her own Committee's final recommendations. What is surprising is the incoherence of her report.

They're biased but I'm not

Mrs Peulich rails against the inquiry being held in the first place, saying that she outright opposed the call. It's curious then that she remained on the Committee once the inquiry was mandated by the Legislative Council.

Even more telling is that Mrs Peulich accuses her fellow Parliamentary Committee members of unmitigated bias—that they simply reached a foregone conclusion. Not only does such hubris demonstrate a breathtaking disregard for the dedication and professionalism of her fellow Parliamentarians, it reveals a comprehensive failure of self-reflection: that other members are biased for the possibility of a supportive stance, but she is not for her preset and entrenched opposition.

The criticism is all the more galling for the fact that Mrs Peulich missed a number of meetings to hear from expert witnesses. Other members were informed and their position changed or at least nuanced by the evidence and advice.

The ramble

Mrs Peulich's minority report then launches into a ramble of conjecture, raising many of the tired old discredited arguments against assisted dying without reference to a single cited fact; incoherently even making points that the Committees' final report (hundreds of pages, fully cited) can't support...and ones that I specifically, comprehensively and evidentially refuted in my submission to and expert witness appearance before the Committee.

At least one appropriate omission

I can say that in response to a question Mrs Peulich asked me about non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, in what she might have anticipated as a 'gotcha' moment, I used empirical scientific evidence to blast the premise of her question—that legalisation of voluntary euthanasia has increased the rate of Dutch non-voluntary euthanasia—out of the water. The rate has dropped dramatically, not increased. At least she didn't raise that hoary old Dutch chestnut directly in her report.

Selective perfectionism

It would be tedious to address every item of unsupported conjecture and misinformation in Mrs Peulich's report. However, one other claim is worthy of discussion. It's an argument she's made before. She says this in regard to assisted dying law reform:

"...people will die as a result of accident, error or misdiagnosis. Any accidental loss of life – even the loss of one life, means such a regime cannot be justified."

Putting aside for the moment the premise of the statement, Mrs Peulich's selectivity is remarkable.

Published scientific research shows that of hospital admissions (Australia), around 0.4% result in death as a consequence of preventable medical error.1 The study was published some twenty years ago, so let's assume that the error rate has dropped—by virtue of greatly improved record keeping, communication, transparency, procedures and technology since then—by a factor of ten: that is, a preventable medical error death rate of 0.04%.

That still means that at least dozens of Victorians die each year as a result of preventable medical error.

If Mrs Peulich argues that no system can be justified if it results in the erroneous loss of a single life, then she must equally argue for the closure and prohibition of the entire Victorian hospital system. Or admit that she's irrationally biased against the option of assisted dying.

Missing critical Oregon 'information'

Yet the most telling thing is what is missing from Mrs Peulich's minority report.

On April 8th 2010, as keynote speaker and in her capacity as member of the Victorian Parliament, at Australian Catholic University's Interfaith Symposium on Death and Dying, she made this unequivocal statement:

"The Oregon experience, which legislated the taking of medication to bring about euthanasia indicates unfortunately that it does occur, that older patients who are tapping into more expensive care are encouraged often to bring about their own earlier demise."

Such a situation would be a very, very serious matter indeed.

But did Mrs Peulich furnish any evidence to support her allegation? No, none whatsoever.

If she believes this matter to be true, and it would be of critical importance to the inquiry to which she was directly a party and would strongly support her case against reform, why does it not appear in her minority report?

Mrs Peulich, put up or apologise

The claim is bunkum. Having extensively studied dozens of reports about and scientific studies into practices in Oregon and personally interviewed key Oregonian stakeholders (for, against and neutral), I have found not a shred of evidence that supports Mrs Peulich's categorical assertion.

I expressly challenge Mrs Peulich to furnish the necessary, verifiable, authoritative evidence (not mere self-serving gossip and scuttlebutt), and to explain why it does not appear as evidence to her own Committee's investigation.

If she is unable to provide such evidence or satisfactorily explain its absence from her minority report, it is my view that she owes the people of Victoria an apology for the spreading of misinformation on the taxpayer's tab.

A dead bat to this challenge would only serve to highlight that her claims are rubbish and that this kind of approach deserves no place in the important public discourse about assisted dying.

 

----------

1. Wilson, Ross McL, Runciman, William B., Gibberd, Robert W., Harrison, Bernadette T., Newby, Liza & Hamilton, John D.. 1995. The Quality in Australian Healthcare Study. Medical Journal of Australia 163: 458-471. 

 


Share This Post:

Bulldust is often advanced by opponents of assisted dying law reform—a reform which most citizens want—to scare or bamboozle us against the reform.

Why is there so much misinformation about? The answer is straightforward: because so far it's worked.

More than academic niceties

This isn't just an academic argument about getting the facts right. It's a fundamental battle between different world views, where misinformation against assisted dying law reform has often held sway. Here are just two real examples:

Examples of real impacts of misinformation

  1. In Australia, in every Parliamentary debate over an assisted dying Bill before them, numbers of opposed politicians have quoted the rhetorical sham "the vulnerable will be at risk" (see why it's a sham here). With the exception of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1996, every Bill before Australian Parliaments has been lost or filibustered until the end of the Parliamentary term on this fearmongering. And the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was annulled by the Federal Parliament in 1997 on the same grounds.
     
  2. In Ireland, the High Court made a determination as to whether Marie Fleming, with advanced multiple sclerosis, was constitutionally allowed to receive assisted dying (Fleming v. Ireland and Ors 2012 10589 P). The court rejected Fleming's claim, saying that the "strikingly high" rates of non-voluntary euthanasia in Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium "speaks for itself as to the risks involved". But sound research shows that the rates in these countries are similar to rates in other countries without assisted dying laws: evidence of the high degree of 'evidential' bull that was served up to their Honours.

It's time to stop the bull in its tracks

DyingForChoice.com believes it's time for the bull, the misinformation, to stop. It is unacceptable for rational citizens to be denied freedoms on the basis of scaremongering and erroneous information. This is the purpose of the F files. It provides citizens, politicians, policy advisors, healthcare workers, media professionals, researchers and others the evidence, arguments and resources to be properly informed and to avoid misinformation.

 

The F Files

Share This Page:

The F files
 

The public conversation about assisted dying law reform has been influenced by misinformation from opponents for far too long. Often, misinformation is simply given in ignorance, but sometimes not. It is mandatory that a conversation as important as assisted dying for those suffering at the end of life is informed by accurate information and evidential and reasoned views. Arguments that deceive or attempt to shut down the conversation have no place.

Whether misinformation is Fearmongering, Filibuster, Flip-flop, Flapdoodle, Fudge, or Fiction or Faith, the F files identifies misinformation and those who are providing it.

You can help by sending records of misinformation claims to us, and asking claimants to correct the errors.

 

Fundamental forms of misinformation

fearmongering.jpg      

Fearmonger

Represent something as considerably more sinister or dangerous than it is when judged by objective criteria.

filibuster.jpg  

Filibuster

Artificial and overly-lengthy process used in an attempt to stall or block a political outcome.

flip-flop.jpg  

Flip-flop

Multiple inconsistent or opposed arguments used to justify a position.

flapdoodle.jpg  

Flapdoodle

An argument that superficially seems intuitively attractive, true or real, but is in fact meaningless or nonsensical.

fudge.jpg  

Fudge

Unscientific analysis (e.g. selective data) used to support an argument that is not supported by proper, full analysis.

fiction.jpg  

Fiction

A thing that is untrue, or invented or feigned by imagination with no sound or verifiable evidence.

faith.jpg  

Faith

An argument that all others should adhere to a particular religion's values, tenets and rules.

 

Share This Page:
Subscribe to RSS - Rhetoric