Today’s edition of the Daily Utah Chronicle, the student newspaper of the University of Utah, has yet another story on Battin’s study titled “Assisted suicide not more common for poor.” The reporter contacted us last week, and more of our critique is present in this article:
One argument against physician-assisted suicide is that it will create a “slippery slope” leading to infanticide for deformed babies and that patients will be influenced in their decision by family pressures or the financial costs of treatment.
Critics are questioning the validity of the new study.
Stephen Drake, a research analyst for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group, argues that the researchers ignore the full definition of “slippery slope” — that euthanasia will eventually extend past whom it was intended for. Drake said for the past few years, the Netherlands have been giving the green light to infanticide.
Battin argues that in the Netherlands, the government hasn’t even made a law concerning infanticide.”In a legal issue the Dutch tolerate, but don’t prosecute a practice immediately — they wait until they can decide where the borders are,” she said.
Drake also argues that the data being collected are “non-verifiable” and are based on what doctors choose to admit.
“We have a variety of data in our study — doctor’s reports and death certificate reports — which doctors can’t lie about,” Battin said.
What’s interesting is that Battin’s “refutations” actually confirm the statements we’ve made. When Battin says that the Dutch “don’t prosecute… until they can decide where the borders are,” she is agreeing with a kind of “slippery slope” approach to euthanasia policy that the Dutch have adopted.
Further, when she says they have a “variety of data” that “doctors can’t lie about” she isn’t denying that much of the data is exactly the kind of non-verifiable information we’ve said it is. And, while I hate to be the one to break the news to her, doctors have been known to lie on death certificates and other medical reports for less than noble reasons.
There’s more…
Kathryn Tucker, legal affairs director at Compassion and Choices, said that the study is an important piece of work and warns others not to put too much credence on arguments made by organizations like Not Dead Yet.
Interesting quote from Tucker. Why shouldn’t others put too much credence on our arguments? Because we’re political and have an established position in this debate? Isn’t the same true of Tucker? Come to think of it, the same is true of Battin.
One last bit from this article…
Battin wouldn’t discuss her opinion on the issue, saying that her view is not relevant to the study.
“Every person has a view about this study, but our research was intended to look for evidence of these 10 groups being vulnerable, not to make a statement on whether it should be legalized or not,” she said.
Methinks the researcher and political advocate doth protest too much.
Although it’s gone virtually unnoticed here in the U.S., last week’s issue of BMJ featured a commentary by Tim Quill. Those familiar with the euthanasia debate know him as a long-time advocate of legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia, and a member of the board of directors of Death With Dignity National Center (Battin serves on the advisory board of this organization). Quill’s advocacy and affiliation are not mentioned in the information attached to his commentary. The title of his commentary is “Physician assisted death in vulnerable populations.” Sound familiar? It should.
Quill’s article discusses various “research” that suits his political objectives, including the research of Battin and her colleagues. It is hard to believe that Quill’s commentary and Battin’s study being published so close in time is coincidental. It looks orchestrated and coordinated.
And it’s political. Britain has been debating legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide for a number of years. It’s been a highly contentious topic within the British Medical Association. Quill’s commentary is obviously meant to have an impact on the public policy debate in the United Kingdom, at least within professional circles.
There’s nothing dishonest or particularly unusual for advance copies of research to get shared with interested colleagues. But it’s disingenuous for Battin and Quill to claim the high ground of academic objectivity while engaging in very direct political action. –Stephen Drake
Addendum: Wesley Smith looked closely at the dates of the submission of the Battin study and its acceptance – looks like the “peer reviewers” were extremely fast readers!