Fearmonger

To represent a thing or situation as considerably more sinister or dangerous than it is when assessed objectively using evidence and balanced evaluation.

0
The Catholic Church flip-flops on 'the vulnerable'. Photo: Donaldytong

The Catholic Church in Australia is reeling from revelations at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, of a shocking number of cases that have occurred under its ‘pastoral umbrella.’ Yet it presumes to tell the rest of us about the hypothetical moral dangers of assisted dying laws for ‘the vulnerable.’

To add insult to injury, it flip-flops on its stance.

Never mind that the argument is contradicted by evidence

The Church’s favourite argument — already contradicted by scholarly analysis that curiously seems to be of no interest to the Church — is this: if people are given the choice of assisted dying, they will feel compelled to choose it, coerced by doctors, greedy relatives or others; subtly or otherwise.

No matter that health care workers routinely report that relatives usually try and persuade their dying loved one to endure yet another invasive and burdensome treatment; not dissuade them from it.

The flip-flop

If the Catholic Church were indeed genuinely concerned about coercion of ‘the vulnerable,’ then it would equally oppose the right to refuse medical treatment, particularly if the treatment were life-prolonging. But it doesn’t.

If granny might die as a result of refusing a particular medical intervention, then a doctor might persuade her to refuse in order to conserve medical resources. Or greedy relatives might persuade her so that they are relieved of the burden and expense of looking after her and gain earlier access to her estate.

As eminent legal scholar Gerald Dworkin has argued,1 if there’s a theoretical ‘slippery slope’ for assisted dying, it’s the same for the refusal of life-preserving medical treatment.

To hold different positions under the same risks is to flip-flop. That’s especially so when there are numerous safeguards built into assisted dying statutes, but currently few or none for the right to refuse life-preserving medical treatment.

Parallel theoretical risks: refusal of life-saving medical treatment, and assisted dyingThe Catholic Church approves of the theoretical risk of the left-hand course (refusal of life-saving medical treatment), but not of the theoretical risk of the right-hand course (assisted dying) which is lower in practice by virtue of considerably more statutory safeguards.

Local experience confirms risk is theoretical

In my home state of Victoria, where the right to refuse any unwanted medical treatment has been enshrined in statute for nearly three decades (the Medical Treatment Act 1988), how many prosecutions have there been under the Act’s provisions against inappropriate persuasion?

Precisely none. Not a single case. So much for the theory.

It all serves to highlight that the Catholic Church’s only real argument is that it believes that it’s morally wrong to deliberately hasten death. However, it avoids this argument because as a religious tenet, it doesn’t appeal to the masses.

Catholic directives

The Church’s flip-flop about ‘the vulnerable’ is not a one-off accident. Take for example the ‘Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services’ published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Bishops ‘direct’ that there is no obligation on patients to use disproportionate means of preserving life. They state that disproportionate means are:

“…those that in the patient’s judgement do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.”

The Bishops further ‘direct’ that:

“The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.”

Setting aside the Church’s hubris of dishonouring the patient’s choice if the Church disagrees, it would be theoretically easy for someone to persuade the patient that hope was not reasonable, that the burden would be too great, or that the cost to the family or society would be too high.

Suffering for our God’s (your own) good

On the next page, the Bishops expressly ‘direct’ that:

“Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.”

That’s unqualified. So, if you’re atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or even a Christian who believes assisted dying can be appropriate, as a patient in their institutions you are to be persuaded that suffering against your beliefs and wishes is ‘redemptive’ in the eyes of the Vatican’s version of a God.

In Australia in 2009, for the Office for Family and Life in the Catholic archdiocese of Adelaide, Mr Paul Russell argued in News Weekly that “there is a point to suffering” because:

“It’s about the profound connection that each and every life has to the incarnate God … We know that the sufferings we endure well are joined in some mysterious way to the sufferings of Christ.”

Pity any poor soul who doesn’t share Mr Russell’s views. Curiously, there is no mention of this underpinning belief in his anti-assisted dying blog, “HOPE.”

Invalid argument in any case

The Church’s argument that ‘the vulnerable’ will be ‘at risk’ from assisted dying laws — for example in the Victorian Bishops’ recent pastoral letter to the Catholics of Victoria opposing the upcoming assisted dying parliamentary Bill — is itself fundamentally invalid.

That’s because, as I’ve previously explained, it’s a circular argument: a logical fallacy.

Ban yellow socks on Wednesdays
A circular argument: We must ban yellow socks on Wednesdays or the 'vulnerable' will be 'at risk'.
‘The vulnerable,’ by definition are those ‘at risk,’ and will still be so if we wear yellow socks on Wednesdays. Therefore, we should ban such bright footwear midweek — and anything else we happen to oppose — on the same basis.

Might anyone argue that “we must ban religion because the vulnerable will be at risk of succumbing to extreme religious views”?

Will the Church change its mind?

The Catholic Church does change its mind from time to time, though its reforms are glacially slow.

Take, for example, its theory of limbo, a place on the doorstep of hell where, the Church claimed, babies go if they die before they’re baptised: that they’d be prevented from entering heaven. It would be hard to imagine a crueller worry to put into the heads of uneducated new parents.

But in 2007, after centuries of confidently promoting the theory, the Catholic Church decided that it was wrong, and buried it.

Will it change its mind on assisted dying? Maybe, but don’t hold your breath.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church, reeling from its extensive failure to protect our most vulnerable — children — and notwithstanding some good individuals within, still seeks to morally lecture the rest of us with the logical fallacy of how ‘risky’ assisted dying legislation is supposed to be to ‘the vulnerable,’ while flip-flopping in support of refusing life-saving medical treatment under the same theoretical risk.

The Bishops’ rhetoric exquisitely exposes their confected crisis against assisted dying as nothing but religious doctrine draped in faux secular garb… in reality a sheep in wolves’ clothing.

 

References

  1. Dworkin, G, Frey, RG & Bok, S 1998, Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. pp.66ff

Share This Post:
0
More Dutch evidence contradicts Margaret Somerville's 'suicide contagion' theory

I’ve previously published an extensive analysis of how Professor Margaret Somerville, of the Catholic Notre Dame University of Australia, cherry-picked her way through select data that seemed to be (but wasn’t) consistent with her ‘contagion’ theory from assisted dying to the general suicide rate. I provided ample evidence from lawful jurisdictions that comprehensively contradicts her claim. I also published the summary in ABC Religion & Ethics.

Yet Somerville still says despite extensive real-world experience to the contrary, that “I believe that my [suicide contagion] statement will prove to be correct.”

She and her Catholic colleagues still hold onto several tenuous threads of information that might — just might — appear consistent with her theory, despite the truckloads of evidence to the contrary.

One of those tenuous threads is that the general suicide rate in the Netherlands has increased from 2008, around the same time that use of the Dutch euthanasia law also increased. (The general suicide rate previously fell as assisted dying rates increased.)

I reported official Dutch government statistics and expert financial reports to show that the unemployment rate explains most (80%) of the variation in the Dutch general suicide rate since 1960, and that the Netherlands was particularly hard-hit by the global financial crisis from 2008 — whereas neighbouring Belgium wasn’t and its suicide rate dropped as assisted dying numbers increased. Unemployment in hard times is a known significant risk factor for suicide.

Now, a detailed and peer-reviewed analysis of Dutch data recently published in the Netherlands Journal of Medicine throws more mud in the face of Somerville’s theory.1

The research looked at the Dutch assisted death and general suicide rates from 2002 through 2014, separately for each of the five Euthanasia Commission reporting regions.

Headline results of the averages for 2002–14 are shown in Figure 1.

netherlandsfiveregionmap.jpgFigure 1: The average assisted death rate (and suicide rate) as a percent of all deaths by region, 2002-14
Source: Koopman & Putter 2016

As you can see, Region 3, which includes Amsterdam, had by far the greatest assisted death rate (3.4%), compared with the other four regions (1.7% – 2.0%). Yet Region 3’s suicide rate at 1.2% was the same as Region 5, while Region 5 had only half the assisted death rate of Region 3 (1.7% vs 3.4%). (The authors, unusually, expressed suicides as a percentage of all deaths.)

It's the opposite of Somerville’s theory which says that Region 3’s general suicide rate should be much higher (not lower, as it is) than Region 5’s.

Those figures are the average for 2002 – 14, and it’s possible that the picture is a little different for the more recent years in which the assisted dying rate is higher.

To answer that question, I’ve retrieved official Dutch Government data and calculated the assisted dying rates and general suicide rates for 2014, the most recent year for which all the data is available. I’ve also calculated the general suicide rate per 100,000 population, the more usual way of reporting and comparing suicide statistics. The results are shown in Figure 2.

dutchregionsveandsuicide2014.gifFigure 2: The Dutch assisted death rate and general suicide rate by region for 2014
Sources: Euthanasia Commission annual reports, Dutch Government statistics

While region 1 (the far north) has the lowest assisted death rate (3.2% of all deaths), it has by far the highest general suicide rate (13.6 per 100k population).

The latest Dutch regional data shows the opposite of Margaret Somerville’s ‘suicide contagion’ theory, adding to the already extensive evidence against it.Conversely, region 3 (which includes Amsterdam) has by a very large factor the highest assisted dying rate (6.0% of all deaths), yet it has the second-lowest general suicide rate (10.3 per 100k population).

This latest empirical evidence is consistent with other extensive evidence I’ve published showing an inverse — or no — relationship between assisted dying rates and general suicide rates.

The question is whether Margaret Somerville and her Catholic friends will pay the slightest attention, or continue to rely on invalid, cherry-picked morsels of data that they think support their theory, but don’t.

 

References

  1. Koopman, JJE & Putter, H 2016, 'Regional variation in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands', Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 74(9), pp. 387-394.

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

 

In the previous video a claim by Catholic Professor of Ethics Margaret Somerville was rebutted: that the Dutch and Belgians seek health care in Germany because they fear being killed by their own doctors and without being asked. In this video, she furthers her bizarre claim by referring to Dutch and Belgian non-voluntary euthanasia rates as 'proof' of her border-crossing healthcare thesis.

However, her cherry-picked statistic establishes nothing, whereas her claim is contradicted by robust research, which I discuss in this video.

It's unclear why Professor Somerville seems to be unaware of or ignores readily-available yet contradictory evidence of central importance to her claim.

This 'non-voluntary slippery slope' claim is another one that's popular amongst campaigners against assisted dying.

 

Transcript

Neil Francis: In the last video, we established as false, Professor Margaret Somerville’s absurd claim of the Dutch going to Germany for health care because they feared being killed by their doctors. But she goes on.

Margaret Somerville: In actual fact they’ve got good reason to fear that, uh, there’s a minimum of, a minimum of 500 cases a year, of doctors who administer euthanasia to people in the Netherlands, where it’s legal, and the patient does not know they’re being given euthanasia, and has not consented to it. Some reports put the figure as high as 2000 cases a year.

Neil Francis: And she makes a similar case for Belgium. So let’s look at the empirical evidence.

Neil Francis: What she’s referring to is non-voluntary euthanasia, or NVE. It occurs in every jurisdiction around the world. A study published in 2003 found these rates. You’ll notice that Italy had the lowest and Belgium the highest NVE rates. And at the time of this study, which countries had legalised assisted dying?

Neil Francis: Switzerland had since 1942, and the Netherlands since 1982. But none of the others had. So the Swiss and Dutch NVE rates, with assisted dying laws, were lower than Denmark’s, without one. And the higher Belgian rate wasn’t caused by an assisted dying law, because none existed at the time.

Neil Francis: But did the Belgian and Dutch NVE rates go up when each country legalised assisted dying by statute in 2002? Here’s what happened in Belgium: the rate didn’t go up — it went down, and the drop is highly statistically significant.

Neil Francis: And in the time since Professor Somerville made her misleading claim, it’s remained lower.

Neil Francis: And here’s what happened in the Netherlands. This rate before the Act is around 1,000 cases a year, and this one after the Act is around 500, the rate that Professor Somerville refers to in her claim as “the minimum”. What she failed to mention is that since statutory legalisation of assisted dying, the Dutch NVE rate dropped, not risen, and to a similar level as the UK, the world’s gold standard for palliative care, and which has never had an assisted dying law.

Neil Francis: And since Professor Somerville made her misleading claim, it’s dropped even further.

Neil Francis: If Professor believes that she has verifiable empirical evidence to back up her claims, let her produce it for examination. Until then, her non-voluntary euthanasia “slippery slope ”is nothing more than fear-mongering innuendo.

Visit the YouTube page.

Share This Post:
0
Professor Margaret Somerville makes an indefensible 'suicide contagion' claim.

Catholic ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville claims that every assisted suicide jurisdiction shows 'contagion' to the general suicide rate. The empirical evidence contradicts her claim.

Get the full report here.

Professor Margaret Somerville, currently Professor of Ethics in the School of Medicine at the Catholic University of Notre Dame Australia,[1] has enjoyed ongoing publication of her opinions, with few challenges published to date.

Back in 2007, Somerville, then a Professor of Ethics at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, appeared as an expert witness in an Iowa District Court case. The court comprehensively rejected her testimony, determining that she:

“…specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favour of ‘moral intuition.’ She has no training in empirical research…”

Professor Somerville, I argue, has again fallen short on empirical research and logical reasoning. To illustrate, I will analyse her claim, published in an opinion piece in ABC Religion and Ethics that:

“…the general suicide rate has increased in every jurisdiction that has legalized assisted suicide.

While her claim may be her own personal opinion, she has presented it expressly stating that she is a Professor of Ethics at her current university of employment, lending the claim perceived authority.

This report demonstrates how her claim and her defence of it are contradicted by multiple sources of empirical government and other primary research evidence. It also demonstrates that she failed to engage appropriate scholarly standards that require the active search for, acquisition and analysis of all reasonably available relevant data in an attempt to answer a particular question.

In making her claim, Prof. Somerville:

  • Cites ‘supportive’ data from lawful jurisdictions while overlooking other data, sometimes even in the same data set, that are inconsistent with her claim;
  • Cites as supporting evidence an econometric modelling study that did not find a statistically-significant relationship between assisted dying law and the general (non-assisted) suicide rate;
  • Fails to consider data from all jurisdictions with assisted suicide laws while making a claim about them all — overlooking Switzerland, whose empirical data is clearly at odds with her claim;
  • Repeatedly cites non-academic anti-euthanasia lobbyist Mr Alex Schadenberg (who also cites her) as a source of evidence for her claim and who in turn quotes a television source and another lobbyist’s opinion to underpin his own beliefs about ‘suicide contagion’; and
  • Conflates voluntary euthanasia (physician-administration) with assisted suicide (patient self-administration) such that her argument, at least in the context of Belgium and the Netherlands, is substantially about the novel concept of ‘euthanasia contagion’ rather than the more familiar ‘suicide contagion’ expression she uses.
     

These findings are consistent with the Iowa court’s ruling that Prof. Somerville sometimes relies on ‘moral intuition’ rather than sound empirical research and logical reasoning.

My report also draws a number of connections between those advancing misinformation on assisted dying ‘suicide contagion,’ and Catholic identity. Catholic identity is not a reason to reject arguments, but it does help identify the source of a majority of ‘suicide contagion’ misinformation.

Finally, I argue that the appropriate course of action for Prof. Somerville is to retract her ‘suicide contagion in every jurisdiction’ claim.

 

Get the full report here.


[1]   Not to be confused with another Professor Margaret Somerville, who is Director of the Centre for Educational Research at Western Sydney University.

Share This Post:
0
Dr Michael Gannon announces the AMA's policy review to AMA members in 2015

In 2016, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) reviewed its policy on ‘euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.’ Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the AMA executive set its policy as opposed to assisted dying, when the only position that would have acknowledged and respected the views of most of its membership was a position of neutrality.

amauncoveredinfographicmar2017.jpg Infographic summary of 'AMA uncovered'

 

Get the PDFs: Infographic | 'Sixteen questions' | Full report

 

AMA policy review

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has been historically opposed to legislative reform that would permit doctor-assisted dying for patients in unremitting and untreatable extremis. Its hostile position had been expressed through a Position Statement (PS) in effect for at least a decade, although its Code of Ethics has been completely silent on the matter.

The AMA’s opposition to doctor-assisted dying has been one of the factors leading to the failure of a number of attempts at assisted dying law reform.

In 2015 the AMA announced a review of its ‘policy’ on ‘euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide,’ managed through its Federal Council. The review was conducted from late 2015 and throughout 2016. It included an online survey of more than 3,700 Australian doctors.

Deeply flawed survey — against assisted dying

The survey methodology contained, however unconsciously, multiple serious design flaws biased against assisted dying: flaws which were brought to the attention of the AMA executive separately by two survey design experts. The executive dismissed the criticisms, incoherently arguing that while the AMA’s reviews are “fully-informed decisions based on well-researched, comprehensive information,” the survey was “not formal ‘research’ as such” and merely a “means to engage our members.”

The AMA relied on selected statistics from the survey to publicly explain the outcome of its review. It also provided its own members a private, detailed report of the review, of which more than half was a comprehensive statistical analysis of the survey.

The ‘Survey Limitations’ section of the report mentioned several minor issues, but not the significant biases brought to the attention of the executive by experts.

Yet supportive doctor responses

Despite these significant biases against assisted dying, the survey found:

  • 68% of doctors said that even with optimal care, complete relief of suffering is not always possible.
  • 60% of doctors said that if lawful, euthanasia should be provided by doctors, and more than half of them (total 32%) said that they would indeed practice it.
  • 52% of doctors said that euthanasia can form a legitimate part of medical care.
  • 50% of doctors expressly disagreed with the AMA’s statement that “doctors should not provide euthanasia under any circumstances.”
  • 38% of doctors expressly disagreed with the AMA’s policy opposed to assisted dying (only half expressly agreed), and 35% of doctors said that euthanasia should be lawful.
     

Some doctors oppose legalisation, not euthanasia itself

In relation to the last point, other scholarly research has found that an additional 25% of Australian doctors are opposed to law reform not because they are opposed to assisted dying itself, but because they would rather practice it in private without regulatory ‘interference.’ This confirms that more than half of Australian doctors believe assisted dying can be a legitimate and practical part of medical care.

AMA not representative of Australian doctors

Only AMA members were invited and permitted to participate in the survey, and more than 70% of Australian doctors are not AMA members, despite the AMA expressly advancing itself as representing all Australian doctors. Non-members are likely to be more supportive of assisted dying — snubbing AMA membership due to the AMA’s ‘officially’ hostile stance.

Hostile tweets by President during review

During the review process, AMA President Dr Michael Gannon made repeated public statements hostile towards assisted dying, including a statement that doctor assisted dying would offend the Declaration of Geneva. The Declaration has nothing specific to say about assisted dying, and any general Declaration statements Dr Gannon relied upon would be equal arguments against abortion. Yet the AMA accepts abortion practice by doctors.

Indefensible conclusion by AMA Executive

Finally, in the face of ample evidence (despite the methodological biases) that at least half of the AMA’s own members favour doctor involvement in lawful assisted dying and deem it legitimate medical care, and 38% of its own members expressly disagreeing with its opposed policy, the AMA executive decided to maintain ‘official’ organisational opposition in the revised PS.

The PS, which was previously named broadly as about ‘end of life care’, is now exclusively named as about ‘euthanasia and physician assisted suicide,’ even though it continues its broad coverage. This suggests that, however unconsciously, the executive’s attitudes against assisted dying have become more entrenched.

The PS continues to unequivocally state as before that “The AMA believes that doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person’s life.” In announcing the conclusions of its review the AMA has promoted this statement widely and as though it applies to all Australian doctors, most of whom are not AMA members.

Neither AMA 'policy' nor its Code of Ethics is binding

Despite the confidence and certainty of the statement, the AMA advises that neither Australian doctors in general nor even its own members are bound by its PSs. Thus, statements in AMA PSs are more ‘suggestions’ or ‘thought bubbles’ rather than authoritative statements.

More recently, the AMA’s Code of Ethics has been updated, yet remains entirely silent on doctor-assisted dying, in curious contradiction of the ‘certainty’ of its PS. The Code of Ethics is not binding on doctors (even AMA members), either.

Incoherent demands for policy consultation

The AMA executive continues to demand deep involvement in the development of a legal framework for assisted dying (despite saying that doctors should not be involved in the practice), yet it has developed no specific frameworks for three other related, already-lawful medical practices: refusal of life-preserving medical treatment, continuous deep sedation until death, and the voluntary refusal of food and fluids.

These discrepancies collectively raise the question as to whether the AMA’s ‘official’ opposition to assisted dying law reform is political rather than medical.

Conclusison

The evidence is clear that the only “justifiable” position the AMA executive could have taken was to declare the AMA neutral towards lawful assisted dying — a matter of individual conscience for its member doctors.

Australian doctors may well question the AMA executive as to how such a flawed process arrived at the outcome it did, and a collection of questions are posed for the AMA to answer. Sixteen questions are posed below.

 

Get the PDFs: Infographic | 'Sixteen questions' | Full report

 

Sixteen questions for the AMA

  1. Why does the AMA, through its Tasmanian representative, think it appropriate to state on national television that dying patients in extremis and without relief can suicide by themselves, even if the AMA doesn’t “encourage” it?
  2. Why did the AMA repeatedly delete corrections to its negative MJA misinformation about assisted dying practice in Belgium?
  3. Why did the AMA decide to review its “policy on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide” when it didn’t specifically have one? It had a policy on the role of doctors in end of life care.
  4. Why did the AMA review comprehensively ignore the substantial secondary data that already exists about the attitudes and practices of doctors and patients in end of life decisions?
  5. Why did the AMA not proactively obtain professional advice and assistance with the design and conduct of its doctor survey, and prefer to use such an amateurish one?
  6. If the AMA really represents all Australian doctors, why did it expressly exclude more than two thirds of them from its survey?
  7. Why did the AMA persistently use inappropriate language and inadequate definitions about assisted dying?
  8. Why did the AMA not make any serious attempt to understand patient perspectives beyond superficial statements that ‘opinions are divided’?
  9. Why did the AMA not report the multiple significant biases in its survey, which it knew about, in the ‘limitations’ section of its final report?
  10. Why did the AMA President consider it appropriate to make multiple statements hostile towards assisted dying while the review was underway?
  11. Why did the AMA executive decide to continue to demand doctors not participate in assisted dying, when more than half of its own members said it could be appropriate clinical practice provided by doctors, nearly four in ten expressly disagreed with the policy, and a third said they’d participate if assisted dying were legalised?
  12. Why does the AMA consider it appropriate to make repeated categorical, public statements that doctors should not be involved in assisted dying, when its Position Statement is not binding on its own members, let alone all Australian doctors?[1]
  13. How can the AMA justify the incoherence of having an expressly opposed stance to assisted dying in its revised Position Statement while it remains totally silent on the matter in its Code of Ethics, revised at the same time?
  14. How can the AMA legitimately demand to be centrally involved in developing an assisted dying framework — in which it says doctors should not be involved — for law reform, when it has no frameworks at all for the similar contexts of refusal of life-preserving medical treatment, continuous deep sedation until death, and the voluntary refusal of food and fluids (all currently lawful and practiced)? When will it develop and publish those?
  15. Why does the AMA continue to present itself to the media and the public as representing all Australian doctors, when more than two thirds of them are not members?
  16. Will the AMA include a formal analysis and critique of this deeply flawed policy review as part of its modernisation efforts in order to rebuild its brand value and stem the falling tide of its membership? That is, is the AMA prepared to learn from its mistakes?

[1]   The AMA’s Code of Ethics is not binding even on its own members, either. So when the Code states “don’t engage in sexual, exploitative or other inappropriate relationships with your patients,” that’s merely a ‘suggestion’ or ‘recommendation’ rather than an ‘obligation’ as a member of the AMA.

Share This Post:
0
Alex Schadenberg's latest shrill and misleading article

Catholic Canadian anti-assisted-dying blogger Alex Schadenberg is at it again. This time he’s parading his ignorance and spreading bull about a potential change in Oregon’s assisted dying legislation.

The Bill

Mr Schadenberg correctly reproduced Section 3 of Oregon Senate Bill 893, which states:

SECTION 3. An expressly identified agent may collect medications dispensed under ORS 127.815 (1)(L)(B)(ii) and administer the medications to the patient in the manner prescribed by the attending physician if:

(1) The patient lawfully executed an advance directive in the manner provided by ORS127.505 to 127.660;

(2) The patient’s advance directive designates the expressly identified agent as the person who is authorized to perform the actions described in this section;

(3) The patient’s advance directive includes an instruction that, if the patient ceases to be capable after medication has been prescribed pursuant to ORS 127.800 to 127.897, the expressly identified agent is authorized to collect and to administer to the patient the prescribed medication;

(4) The medication was prescribed pursuant to ORS 127.800 to 127.897; and

(5) The patient ceases to be capable.

Mr Schadenberg fails to mention Section 2, which states:

SECTION 2. Section 3 of this 2017 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 127.800 to 127.897.

What is the ORS range?

And what precisely isORS 127.800 to 127.897’ (ORS = Oregon Revised Statutes)? Why, it’s the entirety of Oregon’s existing Death With Dignity Act!

In other words, a patient still has to be terminally ill, fully informed, made a formal request, the request assessed as genuine and free, waited the required cooling off period, made another formal request, been assessed as qualifying all the requirements by multiple doctors, has legally appointed an agent expressly for the purpose of administering lethal medication pursuant to the Death With Dignity Act, have their medication prescribed (immediately before which the attending physician must again verify that the patient is making an informed decision) and then the patient ceases to be capable, before the agent may then administer.

Mr Schadenberg exposes that at best he fundamentally doesn’t understand the Bill, nor took much if any effort to do so.

That’s hardly the free-for-all Mr Schadenberg posits in his shrill blog implying that ‘assisted suicide and euthanasia’ was being extended to ‘incompetent people’ without further qualification; falsely insinuating that any incompetent person could then obtain assistance for suicide or euthanasia.

No ‘defence’

If Mr Schadenberg were to claim that he really meant ‘only within the scope of the current Death With Dignity Act,’ and that he’s been taken out of context, that simply won’t wash. Bill 893 makes a provision only for someone else to administer the lethal dose (that is, what Mr Schadenberg refers to as ‘euthanasia’) if the patient ceases to be capable after already qualifying under the existing Act. The Bill does not permit patient self-administration: that is, using Mr Schadenberg’s own language, ‘assisted suicide’—which he expressly refers to in his article.

Parading a non-existent extension of ‘assisted suicide’ clearly exposes that at best he fundamentally doesn’t understand the Bill, nor took much if any effort to do so.

Wrong again…

He also got it completely wrong as to who may administer when the patient ceases to be capable:

“The bill enables the doctor to administer…” — Alex Schadenberg

However, if you read Section 3 of the Bill (above) that Mr Schadenberg himself reproduces, you’ll see clearly that the patient must expressly identify a particular person ('agent') to administer lethal medication should the patient cease to be capable. The patient may appoint his or her doctor, but can appoint in their Advance Care Directive anyone to be the agent; including a trusted and loved family member. The only particular requirement for the agent’s administration is that he or she must “administer in the manner prescribed by the attending physician.”

Conclusion

But let’s not the facts get in the way of a gratuitous reaction trumpeting shrill hyperbole and headline, shall we Mr Schadenberg?

And as usual, Catholic Australian anti-assisted-dying blogger Paul Russel has dutifully reproduced Mr Schadenberg’s farce.


Share This Post:
0
Notre Dame University welcomes Professor Margaret Somerville via its website.

In two opinion pieces recently published in the ABC’s conservative Religion & Ethics blog,1,2 Margaret Somerville, Professor of Bioethics at Notre Dame University, railed against marriage equality law reform using reasoning that I contend fails not only appropriate standards of ethics argument but indeed her own stated standards. Here’s why.

Railing against careful and reasoned language

In two ABC opinion pieces, Margo (as she refers to herself) railed extensively against the term ‘marriage equality,’ arguing that it ought to be referred to instead as ‘same-sex marriage.’ She volunteers that the real motive for her preferred term is that in her opinion fewer people will support ‘same-sex’ marriage than will support ‘equality’ of marriage.

Margo quite overlooks the fact that some folks deliberatively eschew gender identity or are asexual, yet may wish to honour a loving, life-long relationship through marriage. There’s also the issue of a change of gender identity within marriage, not just when entering into marriage.

The goal of Australian marriage law reform is a single, revised Act which articulates a uniform, equal set of provisions for marriage regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity: not a separate Act which permits a different version of marriage only for same-sex-attracted people.

Therefore, ‘marriage equality’ is indeed an appropriate expression for revised legislation while ‘same-sex marriage’ is less so.

“But what about the children!?”

Margo also railed extensively against marriage equality because, she claims, marriage is primarily about the rights of children, not the married couple.

However, the Marriage Act3 makes no assumptions about the marriage being for the purpose of producing children. Indeed, this would be foolish as it would preclude infertile couples from marrying. Here’s the entire definition of marriage under the Act:

“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” — Marriage Act 1961 (as amended)

Sure, the Act does have a couple of things to say about children, but in relation to the status of a legally adopted child, and child ‘legitimacy’ (which confers rights to use the family name and inherit titles, for example).

While the Act provides largesse for religious marriage celebrants to include any wording they deem appropriate (and which might cover the subject of procreation) in a marriage service, the minimum required civil celebrant wording is:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, (first and last name), take thee, (first and last name), to be my lawful wedded wife/husband.” — Marriage Act 1961, S45(2) [or words like it]

No mention of children there, either. Section 1A.3 of the Marriage Regulations4 requires a marriage celebrant (religious and civil alike) to recognise “the importance of strong and respectful family relationships.” Notice again the absence of the presumption of producing children.

No necessary connection between children and marriage

Separate State and Territory Acts provide for the recognition of de facto relationships, over which the Commonwealth has no special jurisdiction. While recognised by the state these relationships are legally distinct from marriage.

In terms of unions that Australians willingly establish, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that:5

  • Around three quarters of marriages are now conducted by a civil celebrant rather than a religious one; and
  • Around one third of all Australian births are now to non-married partners.

 
It’s obvious that many marriages are now non-religious, that they can be childless, and, conversely, that many children are born in the absence of marriage. There is no necessary relationship in either direction between marriage and children that underpins Margo’s contentions.

No necessary link to assisted reproduction, either

Margo then goes on to rail against assisted human reproduction (surrogacy, gamete donation and IVF), complaining that non-hetero married couples would have to ask for such help to produce children. But, like the child argument itself, this is not unique in any way to marriage. De facto couples and even single women can ask for reproductive assistance, as can infertile hetero couples within marriage. As with children, assisted reproduction and marriage are not uniquely entwined as Margo wrongly argues: they are separate in law and practice even if the link is critical to some couples.

Why the confected 'necessity'?

So why then, does Margo go to such lengths to instil ‘children’ as central to the purpose of marriage? A potential explanation is that her expressed views, while reflecting neither law nor practice, are consistent with her Catholic faith. Catholic tradition is very deeply steeped in the notion that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation.

In her 2015 Bird on an Ethics Wire book, Margo invokes the 'would-if-they-could' defence for opposite-sex couples who want to marry but are intfertile (while remaining mute about married couples who expressly don't want children). She fails to articulate any sound reason as to why this is a different 'would-if-they-could' argument from same-gendered or non-gendered partners, except to argue, offensively, that same-sex partners are socially infertile for “lack of an opposite-sex partner.” In her ABC opinion pieces she simply says the hetero version is “symbolic.” Curiously for an ethicist, she fails to reflect on who gets to decide which are valid symbols and whether any symbolism ought to be mandatory for everyone.

Margo asserts that marriage between opposite-sex partners is ‘traditional.’ I say, good on her for personally sticking to a tradition she thinks important: but ‘tradition’ is a poor foundation for continuing to impose historical views on Australians who are not Catholic nor any longer support those views… which is the great majority of us.

The bogeyman argument

Margo then makes vague claims that marriage equality ‘takes away children’s rights’ and causes ‘harms.’ The ‘harm’ she does articulate is the “right to know one’s biological parents.” She speaks of anonymous gamete donation, but fails to note that it occurs equally both inside and outside of — and therefore isn’t conditioned by nor conditions — marriage. Therefore, any “right to know one’s biological parents” is, like children themselves and assisted reproduction in general, entirely independent of the marital status of the parents and is of no special force or relevance in marriage equality debates.

The not-as-good-as-heteros argument

Margo then promotes the importance of the “complementarity in parenting between a mother and father,” with the innuendo that same-sex parents are at least a much lesser standard for raising children, if not unsuitable altogether. Let’s examine this hoary old chestnut, particularly in relation to ‘expert’ evidence Margo proffered in a USA Court case.

Court assessment of Margo’s ‘evidence’

Historically, Iowa’s statute §595.2 restricted marriage to between only a man and a woman. A series of Iowa Court cases overturned that limitation in 2006–9. Margo and two of her colleagues from McGill University’s School of Religious Studies were advanced to the court as ‘expert witnesses’ against the reform, in relation to the ‘perils’ of marriage equality including the ‘harms’ to children. Here’s what the Iowa District Court concluded:6

“Though they may have expertise in certain areas, such expertise is insufficient to qualify Ms Somerville [and her two colleagues from the School of Religious Studies] to answer the particular questions that they are asked. Though these experts desire to make statements regarding gender, results of same-sex marriage on children and the universal definition of marriage, they do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields such as sociology, child development, psychology or psychiatry. Ms Somerville specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favour of ‘moral intuition.’ She has no training in empirical research and admits having no knowledge of existing social science research relevant to this case. She concedes that her views do not reflect the mainstream views of other ethicists.”

and

“The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.”

and

“…the Court concludes that these individuals are not qualified to testify as experts regarding the issues in this matter.”

The Court then expressly identified substantive harms that accrue to non-heterosexual partners through denial of marriage.

The case then went to Iowa’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s determination, noting that:7

“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

and

“Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.”

and

“For example, the official policy of the American Psychological Association declares, ‘There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.’”

So much for Margo’s ‘authority’ on the subject of marriage equality.

Those interested in a thorough rebuttal of Margo’s arguments against marriage equality might be interested to read papers by Scoff F. Woodcock of the University of Victoria (BC), an Associate Professor specialising in normative and applied ethics,8 and Timothy F. Murphy of the University of Illinois, Professor of Philosophy in the Biomedical Sciences specialising in professional ethics, assisted reproductive technologies, medicine and sexuality.9 Both these Professors hold earned doctorates in philosophy; whereas Margo, according to her own biography, holds earned academic qualifications in pharmacy and law, but none in philosophy or ethics.

The importance of relevant and persuasive facts

In an important recognition, a highly-published ethicist once wrote that:

“We sometimes overlook the importance of having good facts in dealing with ethical issues. This is a serious mistake. Good facts (including, if necessary, research to establish them) are essential to good ethics, which, in turn, is essential to good law.” and “Good ethical and legal ‘facts’ start with primary sources that are up to date and accurate.” [Italics are original]

That ethicist was… Margo Somerville.10 My view is that Margo has failed to live up to her own standards by getting some fundamental facts expressly wrong and misrepresenting others with innuendo whilst failing to mention readily-available and widely-agreed facts that contradict her thesis.

Also surprising is that she continues to opine against marriage equality law reform in Australia using the same opinions that were publicly and expressly rejected by a USA court; the same opinions that have been insightfully dissembled and rebutted by appropriately-qualified academics via analyses published in professional peer-reviewed journals.

Conclusion

An Iowa Court has determined that Margo Somerville’s views on marriage equality are largely personal and eschew empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favour of ‘moral intuition.’ (More on ‘moral intuition’ in another blog.) Further, they are at odds with readily available research evidence. Her opinions then are not founded on scholarly verification and fail to reflect the highest standards of thought and deduction.

I firmly believe that Margo is entitled to her opinions. However, it is my view that appeals for her marriage equality opinions to be acclaimed on the basis of the authority bias — as “Professor of Ethics at Notre Dame University” and “a preeminent public intellectual in Bioethics” — are unjustifiable.

And if the ABC chooses to publish any more of Margo’s nonsense about ‘the perils of marriage equality to children,’ I might just ask for a refund of my twelve cents a day.*

-----

Up next: Who is Margo Somerville? Up later: Why is she so comprehensively wrong on assisted dying law reform?

* The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is the nation’s public broadcaster and advertises that it provides its services for a mere twelve cents a day from each of the country’ residents.

 

Footnote: yet another fundamental (and simple) fact wrong

You’d think that being an accomplished Commonwealth legal scholar that Margo would understand the fundamental structure of Commonwealth legislatures.

But in her ABC missives against marriage equality, she concluded by remarking that same-sex couples often lament the lack of marriage equality “…such as we saw in the anguish Senator Tim Wilson manifested in his maiden speech in the Senate.” Here’s a photo of Tim Wilson delivering that speech:

Tim Wilson delivers his maiden speech in ParliamentTim Wilson delivers his maiden speech in Parliament. Video still: ABC News

In Commonwealth countries, the upper house (Australia, federal: Senate) is fitted out in red (the colour of royalty and cardinals), while the lower house (Australia, federal: House of Representatives) is green (the colour of ‘common’ fields).

Immediately evident from glancing at his maiden speech for a mere millisecond is that Mr Wilson is not a Senator: all the livery is green. He is MHR for the Victorian Division of Goldstein, not a Senator for the State of Victoria.

Canadian Parliament housesThe Canadian federal Parliament’s green House of Commons and red Senate (Margo has recently returned to Australia from decades in Canada) Photo: Mightydrake

It’s bewildering then that when Margo saw Mr Wilson’s maiden speech she utterly failed to establish which house he was in, nor took the trouble to examine or test her assumptions before publishing her ‘expert’ opinion about it online.

 

References

  1. Somerville, M 2016, 'Marriage equality' or 'same-sex marriage'? Why words matter, ABC Religion & Ethics, viewed 28 Oct 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/10/14/4556874.htm.
  2. Somerville, M 2016, Same-sex marriage: It's about children's rights, not sexual orientation, ABC Religion & Ethics, viewed 28 Oct 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/10/07/4552500.htm.
  3. 1961, Marriage Act (Cth), Australia, pp. 120.
  4. 1963, Marriage Regulations 1963 (Cth), Australia, pp. 85.
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, 3310.0 - Marriages and Divorces, Australia, 2014, viewed 28 Oct 2016, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3310.0Main%20Features112014?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3310.0&issue=2014&num=&view=.
  6. Iowa District Court for Polk County 2007, Katherine Varnum et al. v. Timothy J. Brien, CV5965, pp. 63.
  7. Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, Katherine Varnum et al. v. Timothy J. Brien (Polk County), SCC No. 07-1499, Des Moines, pp. 69.
  8. Woodcock, S 2009, 'Five reasons why Margaret Somerville is wrong about same-sex marriage and the rights of children', Dialogue-Canadian Philosophical Review, 48(4), pp. 867-887.
  9. Murphy, TF 2011, 'Same-sex marriage: Not a threat to marriage or children', Journal of Social Philosophy, 42(3), pp. 288-304.
  10. Somerville, MA 2014, Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (2nd Ed.), 2nd Ed. edn, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Share This Post:
0
The Australian reported a confected life insurance policy crisis. Photo: Flickr, Pictures of Money

News Ltd columnist Jamie Walker recently reported a confected new crisis between assisted dying law reform and the Australian life insurance industry. It's a triple-sham argument as I reveal.

Last Friday, The Australian columnist Jamie Walker delivered a shrill pitch against assisted dying titled “insurers baulk at ‘suicide cover’ as SA debates euthanasia.” In it he reported that legalisation of assisted dying would “force a showdown with the $28 billion life insurance industry” and would be “disastrous for the industry.”

Such was the article’s hyperbole that it seemed the legalisation of assisted dying might single-handedly lead to the collapse of a massive section of the national economy.

The fall guy for the argument was the current South Australian (SA) Voluntary Euthanasia Bill. Section 28 of the Bill prohibits insurers from excluding a life policy payout for an insured person who dies under the Bill’s voluntary euthanasia provisions.

Mr Walker’s article argued that such an exclusion would be in conflict with Commonwealth law. (Section 228 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Commonwealth), which is not named in the article, expressly permits exclusion of suicide cover from life insurance policies.) In the article, Financial Services Council (FSC) CEO Sally Loane refers to Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia which rules that Commonwealth law prevails over State law when there is any conflict between the two.

If these points were all the relevant facts, then the SA Bill’s insurance exclusion clause would simply fail to be of any force or effect and the world would keep turning as before.

But they aren’t all the facts.

Section 28 of the SA Bill states that insurance policies may not exclude a payout in relation to ‘voluntary euthanasia.’ However, the Commonwealth Life Insurance Act is completely silent on the matter of voluntary euthanasia: it permits policy exclusion only in respect of ‘suicide.’

Further, Section 23 of the SA Bill expressly states that a death under its provisions is not a suicide, and may not be determined as such even by the Coroner.

Consequently, there is no actual ‘suicide’ conflict in law. Indeed, a similar ‘not a suicide’ provision has stood in Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) since 1997 with no crisis — or even ripple — in the USA insurance industry.

So much for the spectacular “showdown.”

The ‘suicide’ argument not only fails in law, but in practice as well. Most life insurance policies in Australia do in fact cover suicide, except for the first year of insurance. To avoid the creation of an insurance policy with the intention of a payout claim by suicide, most Australian policies exclude suicide for the first thirteen months. That extends across the first year of insurance plus a 30-day grace period to pay the renewal premium.

Thus, most Australian life insurance policies cover suicide once a renewal premium has been paid.

And what effect would assisted dying coverage have on the life insurance industry? The Society of Actuaries has published a thorough analysis of the impact of Oregon’s DWDA on USA insurance companies. It calculated such a microscopic potential effect that it concluded there would be no “material impact on life insurance claim costs.”1

Therefore, even if one were to argue that the assisted death of a terminally ill individual — after careful consultation and deliberation — was ‘suicide,’ most Australian life insurance policies would still be due to pay out just as if the individual had died from what we usually refer to as suicide. Plus, it would have no material effect on insurers.

It was largely redundant then for the FSC to write to the South Australian Government to express ‘concern’ that the SA Bill doesn’t refer to a death under its provisions as ‘suicide,’ thereby subtly acknowledging that there was no ‘suicide conflict’ in law in the first place. (In fact it is a Private Member’s Bill, not a Government one.)

Such was its reaction, it would be hard to imagine that the FSC doesn’t already plan to instead try and persuade the Federal Parliament to add ‘assisted dying’ alongside ‘suicide’ as a permissible exclusion in Section 228 of the Life Insurance Act, even in the absence of significant benefit for insurers. If successful, Commonwealth law precedence would then protect insurer rights to expressly exclude life cover for assisted dying regardless of any State laws to the contrary.

But insurers would then be declaring to the Australian public, the overwhelming majority of whom want assisted dying choice legalised, that “we will pay out on the policy if you die in extremis from the horrific but ‘natural’ effects of your illness, or you are driven into pharmacological oblivion through terminal sedation until you die no matter long it takes, or you starve and dehydrate yourself to death by refusing all interventions and sustenance, but we will not pay out if you die a lawful, peaceful, physician-assisted death in the same circumstances.”

Good luck with the public relations exercise on that one.

In the meantime, Australians can see for themselves what a beat-up this report was: in the first instance concocting a pseudo-crisis about supposed conflicts in ‘suicide’ insurance law, in the second instance side-stepping the fact that most Australian life insurance policies currently cover suicide anyhow, and in the third instance ignoring independent analysis showing no significant effect for the life insurance industry after all.

What will be the next confected argument against assisted dying choice for Australians in untreatable extremis? Just wait for it.

This article was originally published in OnlineOpinion.

References

  1. Jaffe, JM 2016, 'An actuarial analysis of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act', Product Matters, Jul(104), pp. 23-25.

Share This Post:
0
Wesley Smith and 'intelligent design' at the Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith is at it again. In his latest anti-assisted-dying tirade published by LifeNews.com, he promote lies about the Dutch Groningen Protocol, despite my published detailed analysis — of how that regulation actually works in practice — providing ample evidence to disprove Mr Smith's polemic theories.

Creationism…with lipstick

Wesley Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute (DI). That's the organisation that promotes ‘human exceptionalism’ (the concept that humans are theologically pre-eminent in the universe), opposes the foundations of evolution, and controversially attempted to have ‘intelligent design’ taught as science in Pennsylvania public schools. The Pennsylvania District Court tossed out DI's ‘intelligent-design-as-science’ argument on the basis that:

“Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and ‘cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.’” — Middle District Court of Pennsylvania

Intelligent design is, after all, merely creationism…with lipstick.

Mr Smith is also the fellow I've previously busted for promoting the false ‘suicide contagion’ theory about Oregon, and cherry-picking his way through other ‘evidence’ to fuel another of his polemics.

More nonsense — this time the Groningen Protocol

And now he's at it again. In his latest anti-assisted-dying tirade, he says this:

“Although technically illegal, infanticide happens regularly in Netherlands without legal consequence, and a bureaucratic checklist was published that determines which babies can be killed. Showing the direction of the current, the Groningen Protocol§ (as it is known) was published with all due respect and without criticism, in the New England Journal of Medicine.” — Wesley Smith

Mr Smith does nothing but parade astonishing ignorance and bias with this statement.

The facts

From my extensive and detailed research about the Groningen Protocol published in the Journal of Assisted Dying, Mr Smith ought to know that:

  • Neonatal euthanasia occurs around the world whether it is regulated or not. It occurs, for example, in France, where there is no protocol and no adult assisted dying law, at a rate far higher than the Netherlands.
  • The Groningen Protocol is lawful in the Netherlands and has recently been overhauled and further strengthened.
  • Its provisions are considerably more strict than are those of the Dutch euthanasia Act for decisionally-competent minors and adults.
  • In the nine years since the Protocol came into effect, there have been just two cases of neonatal euthanasia, both for cases of Herlitz type epidermolysis bullosa, a fatal and untreatable illness characterised by extreme internal and external blistering.
  • That compares with twenty two cases, mostly in relation to spina bifida, in the nine years prior to the Protocol coming into effect.
  • The Protocol was subject to considerable criticism from opponents when it was first published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

 
Highly relevant too is that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology also argued in 2006 (not long after the original Groningen Protocol was published in NEJM) for neonatal euthanasia to be possible in extreme cases in the UK.

Not the only criticism of Mr Smith

Mr Smith has been criticised before by others for selectively using evidence and being:

"prepared to bend the truth to make a point, turn a stomach, and potentially radicalize a reader." — Matthew K. Wynia and Arthur Derse, Medscape

Perhaps Mr Smith doesn't care for the facts getting in the way of a good polemic? While he's entitled to his opinions, by repeatedly bending the truth and making statements contrary to the readily-available evidence, I argue that Mr Smith directly undermines any apparent 'authority' he claims for his musings.

Conclusion

The recurring pattern of resorting to misinformation reveals a lack of any real argument. I challenge Mr Smith to lift his game or retire his quill.

-----
§ Mr Smith links ‘Groningen Protocol’ to a blog published by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition which is run by Canadian Catholic Alex Schadenberg. That blog is in turn based on a blog published by the Catholic online blog Mercatornet. The Mercatornet blog is itself a reproduction of an article by Dr Felipe Vizcarrondo who was a Clinical Bioethicist at Georgetown University (a Catholic and Jesuit institution), and  which was originally published in Linacre Quarterly, the journal of the USA Catholic Medical Association.


Share This Post:

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Fearmonger