The possibility that members of the Final Exit Network are passing off boilerplate op-eds as original work may seem trivial. After all, this is a group of people whose “hobby” – like bridge (see below for an explanation) – is to plan and preside over the deaths of multiple strangers. In spite of this (to put it mildly) creepy pastime, the FEN members are aggressively claiming the moral high ground.
So, in terms of the ethical standards of FEN members, it was an eye-opener last week when I read a column by FEN member John Fanning in the Summit Daily News, published on March 25th.
The reason it was an eye-opener is that I had already read parts of Fanning’s column – word for word – in a March 19th op-ed by former FEN president Earl Wettstein, published in the Arizona Daily Star.
These op-eds or columns run between 500-600 words, so the following passages (and these are just the best examples) represent a significant portion of these “original” works:
The media is calling the four people involved a “ring,” an obviously pejorative word. They are no more a ring than your bridge group. Please call Final Exit a volunteer group of Death with Dignity advocates, but not a ring. — Earl Wettstein
The four people arrested were members of the Final Exit Network. The media refers to the four people arrested as part of a “ring” — an obviously pejorative word. They are no more a ring than your hiking or bridge group. They are a group of volunteers who are death with dignity advocates. — John Fanning
The network is an all-volunteer organization with 3,000 members across the nation who pay $50 a year to belong. What they are buying with this annual fee is a form of insurance — that if they become terminally ill from an incurable disease that they can no longer bear, they can request the services of a compassionate, caring exit guide who will counsel them, who will be with them, who will hold their hands when they end their own lives. But who will not physically turn the valve. — Earl Wettstein
The network is an all-volunteer organization across the nation with members who pay $50 a year to belong. The annual fee buys the assurance of an alternative if they become terminally ill from an incurable disease they can no longer bear. If they choose, they can request the services of a compassionate, caring exit guide who will counsel them, who will be with them, who will hold their hands and comfort them when they choose to end their own lives — but will never physically assist in any part of the process. — John Fanning
Isn’t it strange that physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana, but other states still punish it as a felony or misdemeanor? Bills that would legalize the practice are currently before the legislatures of New Hampshire, Hawaii and New Mexico.Had the man in Georgia lived in Oregon, for example, he could have received voter-approved, legal assisted dying in the form of a life-ending prescription from his doctor. — Earl WettsteinIsn’t it strange that physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, but other states still punish it as a misdemeanor or even a felony? Had the man in Georgia lived in Oregon, he could have received voter-approved, legal assisted dying in the form of a life ending prescription from his doctor. — John Fanning
Aside from the striking textual similarities, the pieces exhibit the same patterns of omissions and at least one outright lie. In both op-eds, no mention is made that John Celmer’s autopsy report indicates he was cancer-free at the time of death. Without that information – and with Wettstein’s outrageous assertion that FEN clients are “terminally ill,” – the lie at the end of both essays can go unchallenged. (Fanning avoids using the term “terminally ill,” but still makes the identical closing claim that Wettstein does)
What explanation can there be for the fact that both essays contain the identical factual lie? How could both men come to claim that Celmer – a non-terminally ill man – could legally get help to commit suicide in Oregon? By law and in theory, that would not be possible in Oregon – and both men know it. As mentioned previously here, FEN issued a press release last year announcing it would “help” people who fell outside of the eligibility standards in Oregon and Washington state.
Two explanations come to mind. The first is that Fanning, who published the more recent piece, “borrowed” heavily from Wettstein. The second possibility is that both men worked from a single “boilerplate” set of talking points that made the mistake of going beyond “points” and providing wording – so that sloppy members would take the material word for word instead of rewriting the points into their own style of prose.
We could see more of these. I learned a lesson these past few days about how little one newspaper – the Summit Daily News – seems to care if columns aren’t exactly “original work.” I called the managing editor at the paper and left voice mail asking if they had a policy in regard to columns and op-eds being original work. I sent email to the same editor asking the same question and gave a link to the Wettstein op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star.
To date, there has been no reply via email or phone from the newspaper. Fanning’s column remains on the newspaper site, proudly unchanged – along with my submitted comments questioning its originality – in the “comments” section.
I’m not surprised by the shortcuts apparently taken by Fanning in getting the word out. But I am surprised – and saddened – by the apparent lack of concern over the matter from the Summit Daily News. –Stephen Drake