🚀 go-pugleaf

weaver1@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:


I was waiting a long time for the "gotcha" Frank. I knew it was
coming, you wouldn't have posted up all that lovely data which just
begged to be given an anti-euthanasia spin otherwise.

>I had a bet with myself that you would regurgitate the same spin
>from Rita Marker you tried before.  Looks like I owe myself a
>beer (I love these win-win bets :-) )  Of course, you didn't answer
>my rebuttal to that, but I promise not to be too repetitive.

Make all the bets you like Frank.
The fact is I posted the article you claim was written by Rita Marker
as a community service, to balance the pro-euthanasia message in Des
Carne's article. I only read it briefly to make sure it had the right
spin. I did not study the article in detail, nor did I refer to it at
any time while compiling my own article. If it draws the same
conclusions it can only because I reached them independantly.
You will have to take my word for it, but if you ask arounf the ng
aus.politics where I usually hang out,everyone but the obvious loonies
will vouch for my integrity.

>[snip]
>>Even the number of explicit requests for euthanasia at a particular
>>time, usually driven by pain, 
>bullshit,
>>fear 
>bullshit
>>and insecurity, 
>and bullshit.

Very elloquent Frank. But where is your actual refutal ?

>I have both studies right here on my desk.  You'll kindly cite the
>page numbers (in either study) where the authors  state this.  I'll
>take a non-answer as an admission that you are willfully 
>misrepresenting their contents.

I made a simple comment regarding usual motivation for people
requesting euthanasia at a particular time.  I do not feel it is
necessary to limit all aspects of my contribution to the sterile list
of figures you kindly supplied. To do so would add nothing to what you
had already written. I am sure I have posted the reference to Dr
Foley's statement about most people who request euthanasia as a result
of uncontrolled pain retracting the request once pain is relieved. I
will dig it out again if you really want me to.

>[snip]
>>So much for claims that permitting euthanasia does not change
>>community attitudes toward patient killing. The figures from the Dutch
>>study clearly indicate that community attitudes towards euthanasia
>>have changed in favour of increased patient killing over the five
>>years of the study.

>To start, the 'patient killing' bit is calculated rhetorical 
>manipulation, that first refuge of scoundrels.  It bears only the
>barest possible resemblance to the actual situation necessary to
>separate it from outright lying.

In other words, you don't like what I said, but you can't refute my
words. 

>What is accepted is: voluntary euthanasia at the request of the
>patient, following guidelines laid down by the Dutch courts and the
>Royal Dutch Medical Association.  This has had widespread support for
>years.  That more people have translated that support into personal
>requests has a number of possible demographic causes.

I had no idea that Dutch society was so dynamic.
A quick check at CIA shows a migration rate of 0.17% during the period
in question. It seems there must be some other cause for a shift in
the Dutch attitude to patient killing over the period. Perhaps their
legal system turning a blind eye to euthanasia ?



>[snip]
[countersnip]

>>Firstly, lets look at what the Dutch term "euthanasia". The doctors
>>themselves admit that euthanasia accounted for 1.9% of deaths in 1990
>>and 2.3% in 1995, an increase of 21.1%.

>Not very good at arithmetic, are you?  Correct answer: 27% -- but
>that includes the increase in total deaths, also, and totally ignores
>other changes in population demographics.

Hmm, lets see, 
2.3-1.9=0.4
0.4*100/1.9 = 21.1%
Seems fine to me, but then  I'm only an electronics tech so what would
I know ?

>>The death certificate survey indicated 1.7% of deaths were due to
>>euthanasia in 1990, increasing 5 years later to 2.4%, an overall
>>increase of 41.2%.
>>
>>PAS was seperately listed in the study. The doctors surveyed indicated
>>that PAS accounted for 0.3% of deaths in 1990 and 0.4% in 1995, an
>>increase of 33.3%.

>It seems your problems are not only in arithmetic.  You're ignorant
>of statistics, as well.  Both studies used the customary stratified 
>random sample.  The difference is well within the limits of random
>sampling error, literally the difference between picking THIS doctor's
>name from the hat instead of THAT one's.

So what you are telling us, is that the data is worthless, and that
some of the data put forward for us to draw meaningful conclusions
from had differences within the margin of error, yet both the original
authors and yourself put it forward anyway. Hmmm.

BTW I admit only basic knowledge of statistics, however I did have
someone who does have stats experience check my article over before
posting. They indicated my conclusions were a valid interpretation of
the data.

>[snip]
>>In 1990 no data was
>>obtained in the doctors survey on ending life without the patients
>>explicit request. In 1995 doctors indicated this occured 0.7% of the
>>time.
>>
>>The death certificate investigation indicated this rate to be
>>unchanged at 0.7% since 1990.

>The reported figures were 0.8% in 1990, 0.7% in 1995, a statistically
>insignificant difference.

> 
>So, it's not that you're statistical ignorant, but simply dishonest.

OK, You got me. I admit I made a mistake in this figure.
There was a 12.5% decrease in what the death certificate survey showed
as doctors ending life without the patient's explicit request. Thank
you for pointing this out. Although you claim it is statistically
insignificant, it was included in the report and deserves
interpretation. 

>You'll hype a random fluctuation upward as some horrible change (and 
>grossly overinflate it by phony arithmetic -- a bright ten-year-old 
>should be able to tell you why you can't treat percentages as you 
>have).  But a random fluctuation downward is 'unchanged.'  How 
>convenient.

Again I apologise, but the rate of change of a quantity is extremely
important in any feedback controlled system. In most PID industrial
process control systems a differential quantity of the magnitudes in
this data would have already instigated corrective action. Since you
are so quick in condemning my statistical and arithmetical
shortcomings, perhaps you would like to tell readers what happens in
any control system with insufficient derivative action ?

>[snip]
>>Statistics captured from an article posted to
>>the internet newsgroup talk.euthanasia, 
>[snip]

>That's twice now you've told us what the study means.  Now you admit 
>- -- no, trumpet -- that you haven't actually bothered to read it?  How's
>that for (lack of) intellectual integrity?

Thank you for the gratuitous ad-homenium Frank. I will refrain from
reciprocating your hospitality and instead draw your attention to the
obvious difference in resources between the two of us. I thank you for
providing the data from the Dutch study, I would have been reliant on
other people's interpretations without your kindness. You will be
pleased to know that my interpretation of your figures has been read
by a number of the Senators currently debating the Andrews Bill in our
Federal Parliament. You have done the world a great service, and
whatever the outcome of the debate, you will know you helped decide
the euthanasia issue in Australia.



David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics