Well, big “news” broke yesterday with the announcement of the publication of a study that claims to put an end to any idea of “abuses” under assisted suicide and euthanasia laws in Oregon and the Netherlands, respectively. The lead author is Margaret Battin, who is a long-time advocate of legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, and is on the advisory board of Death With Dignity National Center. Her advocacy history is mentioned in some articles but not in others. Interestingly, the objectivity of Battin and her colleagues goes unquestioned in the mainstream news reports. I have a hard time imagining the publication of an article with contrary findings by an anti-euthanasia advocate that wouldn’t get challenged harshly on its objectivity.
Many of the articles that have come out since yesterday are little more than reproductions of the press release issued by the University of Utah. This Reuters story by Will Dunham is one such example.
One reporter, Kirsten Stewart of the Salt Lake Tribune actually contacted us for the story she was working on, but “right on deadline.” That means that there was little time to review or process the reports regarding the study to be published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Luckily, Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition had emailed a copy of the Univ. of Utah press release and his own critique earlier in the day, so I was able to beg a few minutes to look over the points in the release.
Here are the points I made:
- the term “slippery slope” has always included the idea that the practices of assisted suicide and euthanasia will expand beyond the original “target population.” This has happened in the Netherlands, which has given the green light to both infanticide of disabled infants and facilitation of the suicides of some people with psychiatric labels (link to information on both of these below).
- the data used are “soft data” – there is no way to verify the information coming from the anonymous self-reports of medical professionals in the Netherlands and Oregon. In fact, recent events in Oregon have highlighted how little accountability and oversight there really is. After being embarrassed by some investigative reports regarding Oregon’s Nursing Review Board, the Governor ordered an investigation. The result – the top two people are gone. Among the serious cases never referred to police were two nurses who admit to “assisting” a patient commit suicide, although there is no evidence she requested any such “help.” Due to the inaction of the Review Board and the delay, prosecutors are doubtful they will be able to press a case.
So what actually made it into the Salt Lake Trib article? Just this:
Stephen Drake, an analyst at Not Dead Yet, a disabled-rights group opposed to euthanasia, claims the study used “soft” data self-reported by doctors.
Notice that none of the reasons for calling this “soft data” are shared in the article. And nothing about the narrow and idiosyncratic definition of “slippery slope” used by the Battin and her colleagues. Maybe it’s because she was on deadline and she didn’t have time to verify my own claims. But she did have time to get this quick refutation from one of the two pro-assisted suicide advocates (in addition to Battin) quoted in the article:
Proponents of assisted death argue the methodology was peer reviewed.
“It’s the most pre-eminent examination of the data with the slippery slope question in mind,” said Kathryn Tucker, legal affairs director at Compassion & Choices.
For anyone interested in specifics regarding the expansion of euthanasia and the lack of controls there, you can check out our archived copy of “Euthanasia is Out of Control in the Netherlands” which was published as in the “Perspectives” section of the Hastings Center Report in 2005. –Stephen Drake
Addendum: Coincidentally, Beth Haller has written about Not Dead Yet today on the Society for Professional Journalists’ Diversity Blog. Check out what she’s telling reporters about us in “Activist group, Not Dead Yet, can be a significant news source.”
Addendum II: Wesley Smith has additional insight and analysis in Battin Assisted Suicide Report Demonstrates the Vapidity of “Scientific Studies.”
Let’s assume that your facts are 100% correct even though many studies these days have a way of reaching exactly the conclusions that those funding them desire to reach. They fail to demonstrate that it’s somehow impossible to develop a responsibly supervised system under which people whose minds are fully intact but are leading lives of hell on earth have choices other than being hooked up to tubes staring at the ceiling until they die horribly protracted and unnatural deaths or have to suffer some terrible and unreliable form of taking their own lives.
We do capital punishment. Notice that it hasn’t produced a “slippery slope” where guards haul out prisoners willy-nilly for lethal injections?
I’m in my fourteenth year of an incurable rare degenerative disorder, in widespread, intractable and increasingly severe pain. I’m semi bedridden – flat on my back maybe eighteen of twenty four hours, unable to lift my arms from that position.
I’m passionate, intelligent, love life, and I’m anything but suicidal. I’m doing the very best I can with what I’ve got. But with the only options now available, I know I’m looking at an extremely hard death when it comes.
I don’t much care for the avaiable options. We do better by our dogs, cats, and criminals than by ordinary citizens facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
Paul,
thanks for your post. I think you are in fact reiterating my point that it’s possible to have “objective” research turn out any number of ways – depending on what you define as “relevant” data and how you define your questions.
Your statement on capital punishment is kind of a “straw man,” though. While it’s true that we don’t have guards dragging people out, it’s pretty well documented that the death penalty is not applied in an equitable fashion – class and race play significant roles. In Illinois alone, we had (I think this was the last count) 17 wrongfully convicted people on death row. They weren’t exonerated by a system that “worked” but by a college professor engaged on a project and some investigative reporting.
And if we’re going to talk about killing our pets, let’s be sure we’re honest. Many pets are killed because they’re pissing on the rug, have behavioral problems, have conditions too expensive to treat, or have conditions that upset the owner’s sense of “dignity” – the animals aren’t consulted, of course.
Not dead yet,
Well, I think maybe you are deliberately missing Paul’s point – aren’t you. His statement about pets is directed about how we humanely end their lives when we know they are in extreme pain and suffering. Why are we so much more compassionate about our pets than our fellow man? Why redirect the focus? His point is valid, and you attempt to shift the focus away from it.
I agree completely that you will find in research the information you go looking for. So really, there is no valid substantiation for your “slippery slope”. You chose your data to fit your expectations.
dear “anonymous” –
I didn’t miss Paul’s point at all, but pointed out that he was using a stereotypical, romanticized and very select piece of the issues surrounding the killing of household pets.
Paul’s comment suggested that this was the sole – or at least the main – reason that household pets are killed.
It’s at odds with the crueler reality.