🚀 go-pugleaf

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

                Newsgroups: talk.euthanasia, aus.politics, aus.general
                Followup-To: talk.euthanasia, aus.politics

In article <5gnde9$6ck$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:
>weaver1@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:
[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 ?

You've got things bass ackwards, bunky.  It's up to YOU to
provide some justification for your claims.  Especially when they
contradict the very studies in which you pretend to have such 
expertise.

[snip]
>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. 

IOW, actual surveys are such inconvenient things.  If they refuse to
provide you with the answers you want, you can ignore their 'sterile' 
results and make up something you like better out of whole cloth.

Well, I can be generous and there are at least 6 or 8 other surveys
out there -- where researchers actually asked for the reasons for
requesting euthanasia/assistance with suicide.  So for the second time: 
document or retract.

>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.

If it's not a blind survey published in a peer-reviewed journal, don't 
waste the bandwidth.  I readily concede that you can find some shill 
to spout any line of bull you want.

[snip]
>>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. 

Oh?  I did so but let me spell it out again.

To be even remotely honest, at least some of these 'community
attitudes' would have to change:

        1.  Did doctors show a more casual attitude toward euthanasia
        requests, or grant them more readily?

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE occurred: dramatically fewer euthanasia requests 
became explicit.  Doctors provided other alternatives 72% of the time,
up from 65% in 1990.  Less than a third of explicit requests, and
only 9% of all requests, resulted in euthanasia or assisted suicide.

        2.  Did euthanasia occur on healthier patients or those
        with longer to live?

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE occurred: except for non-treatment decisions,
85% or more of all life-shortening decisions shortened life by 1
month or less.  For euthanasia and assisted suicide, that figure is
over 90%, with 60% occurring with 1 week or less to live.  And there 
was a marked trend toward waiting longer and exhausting more 
life-sustaining options before turning to hastening death.

        3.  Did doctors take more unilateral actions without 
        previous discussions with patients?

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE occurred: the patient had made an explicit
request 100% of the time in euthanasia and assisted suicide.  For
other decisions, there was an increase in the proportions done by
patient request.  The only exception to this, ending life without the
patient's explicit request, showed a very large change to only being
done when the patient was incompetent (and therefore unable to make a
request), very near death (33% a few hours only, 91% less than a
week), and after seeking out second, third and fourth opinions from
colleagues, nurses and family (95%).

        4.  Did reporting of cases become more cavalier or less 
        frequent?

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE occurred: reporting rates more than doubled,
from 18% to 41%, and support among physicians for reporting cases
skyrocketed to over 80%.  The barriers to further increased reporting
are entirely administrative: an excessively lengthy and burdensome
questionnaire to fill out and turf battles over who should receive it.

        5.  Are the authorities more lax about enforcing the guidelines, 
        or less likely to pursue cases that don't seem to meet them?

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE occurred: as the number of reported cases more
than doubled, the number of inquests rose by 250%, and the number
of prosecutions by 500% (1994 data; many 1995 cases were still in
process when the study was conducted).  Inquests dismissed without 
prosecution declined.

        6.  Finally, is there any evidence that the core of slippery 
        slope  allegations, that VE would lead to increased 
        involuntary euthanasia, has any basis?

THE OPPOSITE occurred: two independent studies saw DECLINES in the 
proportions of ending life without explicit patient request (the 
closest category to 'involuntary).  Proportions of patient requests 
rose in every other class of decision -- they became more voluntary, 
not less.

So where are these changed community attitudes toward patients?  The 
only change is (maybe) OF the patients themselves.

With such a long list of refutations to slippery slope claims, it's
no wonder you redefined 'slippery slope' to be
'whatever-the-study-actually-found.'  But that results in: allowing
voluntary euthanasia even under strict guidelines of careful practice
leads to ... voluntary euthanasia with even more careful practice.
What a terribly steep slope that is!

[snip]
>>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.

Amazingly enough, most Dutch were nearly 5 years older in 1995 than 
they were in 1990.  Very few got younger.  Even more amazing is that 
the researchers could -- and did -- predict in 1990 that the 
population would be older on average a few years later.

>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 ?

Refuted by the same studies on which you claim to have such expertise.

>>>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 ?

Hmm, 50%-10% = 40%
40%*100/10% = 400%

So, according to Moss-math 9TM, pat. pend.), $5 (50% of $10) is 
400% larger than $1 million (10% of $10 million).

>>>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

It is not at all worthless.  The meaningful conclusion is that the 
rate is unchanged.  This is strong evidence against any hypothesis 
that claims the rate should increase.

>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.

No competent statistician could determine the difference between
noise and valid changes without knowing something about the size 
of the sample -- which you don't have.  Feed him a bogus sample size 
and you get a bogus answer.  Garbage in, garbage out.

>>[snip]
>>>In 1990 no data was
>>>obtained in the doctors survey on ending life without the patients
>>>explicit request. 
[snip]

Oh, that's false.  There was enough data to know that the number went
down between 1990 and 1995.  It was the percentages that weren't
determined.

>>>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.

You did not make a mistake; you reported the result falsely.  You
continue to report it falsely on your Web site.

Of course, the fact that this 'insignificant' change is the same
magnitude as the 'big increase' you claimed earlier has nothing to do
with your 'mistake.'  

>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. 

Then where is it?  The slippery slope predicts that euthanasia
without the patient's request should increase.  A 12.5% decline
would be a crippling rebuttal.  Of course, that has nothing to do 
with why you report the decline as 'unchanged.'

>>You'll hype a random fluctuation upward as some horrible change (and 
[snip]
>>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
[drivel deleted]

This is probability, fool, not mechanics.  Hell, even mechanical
systems are designed to screen out white noise, or your car would go
careening off the road each time you hit a pebble.

[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. 

Oh, dear. the master at truly gratuitous insult-slinging as an excuse
for reasons has his feelings hurt.

But it is not gratuitous to point out that you claim to know what the
study is all about.  Nor is it gratuitous to point out that you are
contradicting the authors about their own facts.  Nor is it
gratuitous to point out that you are contradicting the authors
without even knowing what their facts are -- like how large their
surveys were.  Nor is it gratuitous to point out that that is
considered intellectual fraud.  So. it can't be gratuitous to
label behavior that matches intellectual fraud as fraudulent or
lacking in integrity.

Deal with it.

[snip]
- -- 
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

iQCVAwUBMzo7iEJ1zIgKroS1AQHseAP/RscMD3GwlmgRsr7mcGm+q1SXhsYdyEr0
g5TgxjL5+jSxNLfd6nAsa1gE7bXuaJN5IFWyO4b1+BM4GLGBSraBsyWxEiTBVOMe
9IZ6t63G0X5nzd5FIPcaGaLu9U8eUTXDE0nn8gGq/2zLWuAGSIcpkQHdfj2lk4RG
rJ+4qUyCjio=
=aHFl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----