🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

        Newsgroups: talk.euthanasia, aus.politics, aus.general

In article <adm.857967460@ccadfa>,
adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:
>
>On 22 February, Frank Weaver posted an article entitled:
>"The real story on the Dutch (1/3)". The following is my interpretation 
>of the data contained in Frank's article. A HTML version with graphics
>can be found under Reasons: Historic Warnings at 
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270
>
>Dutch slide the slippery slope

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.

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

bullshit,

>fear 

bullshit

>and insecurity, 

and bullshit.

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.

[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.

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.

What is not accepted is: 'patient killing' that is not desired by the
patient.

What falls in a grey area is: hastening the deaths of patients who
are near death but are incompetent to state their wishes, when 
physicians in consultation with colleagues and family members
determine it is in the patient's 'best interests.'

Only the first of these has seen any increase.

Which leads to the second reason for the manipulative language (aside 
from its inflammmatory value) is to camouflage the vicious circularity 
of your alleged 'slope' in the hope that no one would notice.

I noticed.

Since only *voluntary* death has shown any sign of increase, your
argument boils down to: VE is bad because more is worse because it's
bad anyway so more is worse which proves it's bad which ...

This question-begging never gives a single coherent reason for
opposing VE.  It's also a shoddy excuse for a slippery slope.

There was a time when slippery slope arguments at least included the
idea of decline.  Bishop Sullivan claimed it would lead to a complete
loss of compunction about killing whatsoever (see e.g. "The Immorality 
of Euthanasia," in Marvin Kohl, ed. *Beneficent Euthanasia*, 1975). 
More recently, Cardinal Clancy upped the hysteria quotient by 
declaring VE to be the beginning of the end of civilization.

Well, Dutch civilization is still standing.  Ordinary citizens have
not started to randomly machine-gun each other on street corners,
either.  Even the less psychotic predictions that allowing VE might
lead to an increase in nonvoluntary patient killing are shown to be 
false.

It was the sought outcome that patients should, under a limited
number of circumstances, be able to ask their doctors for assistance
in hastening their own deaths.  It was the sought outcome that this
should occur only near the end of life when all other alternatives
were exhausted.  It was the sought outcome that the bulk of such 
requests should be diverted to other alternatives.  It was the sought 
outcome that this *voluntary* procedure should not extend to patients 
without their explicit request.

It was the found outcome that patients do ask their doctors for 
assistance in ending their lives.  It was the found outcome that
the majority of these requests (65% in 1990, increasing to 72% in 1995) 
are rejected and other alternatives found.  It was the found outcome 
that the requests that were granted shortened life by only a few days 
to weeks.  It was the found outcome that in a very small number of 
cases, patients' lives were ended without their explicit, 
contemporaneous request.  It was the found outcome that almost all 
of these patients were unable to make any medical decisions at that
time, but the majority had previously indicated that this is what 
they wished.

What was sought is what was found, with a tiny but stable difference
between the ideal and reality. Faced with such a firm, even crippling 
(since slippery slope arguments, to be useful, can't allow exceptions),
rebuttal to your principal argument, you creatively redefine stasis 
as 'sliding down the slippery slope.'

[snip]
>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.

>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.

[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.
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.

[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?

<*burp*> Good beer.  Must be the Dutch hops.
- -- 
Frank Weaver                                       Encrypted email preferred
weaver1@world.std.com                              PGP KeyID: 0AAE84B
                                                   On a keyserver near you
                         Blessed is the Water of Life,
            by the grace of the holy trinity: yeast, malt and hops

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMy5+EEJ1zIgKroS1AQEB7AP6ApDHM2fidbOiroVOff4iUHfvmcLcWISS
m/anqvldqqPgogEyTD/FPO9WYId5E6xwDNEYBWJyx0CAttHH4tYJ/3sInzuDfx2X
BaZv6qDZxFFvKjc68Px9NFEqN1MdBp5lkqL9oybnCAjQZQzp1puN5SWJuyrnIOgq
Umkn0lidkmY=
=JNFt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----