Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Tuesday 24th September 2024 at 11:54pm
The Dutch LZA-LP has just published its latest annual report.
Nearily two decades ago...
It seems like such a long time.
The Groningen Protocol
Back in 2005, the Dutch Paediatric Association (NVK) ratified what is known as the Groningen Protocol. It was adopted into the nation's regulations in 2006. It allows for the termination of a neonate's life in very particular circumstances, via strict processes, and reported to the regulating authority, the LZA-LP.
Only the most grave, extremis circumstances are eligible, for example Herlitz type epidermolysis bullosa, an untreatable condition that causes extreme internal and external blistering, and then death.
Then in 2013, the Dutch medical association (KNMG) released a medical media statement saying that each year, some 650 of 175,000 Dutch neonates will die not long after birth.
VAD opponents become enraged
Opponents of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) immediately became enraged, joining dots that didn't exist.
"After a decade of legalized assisted dying in the Netherlands, it is estimated that as many as 1 in 3 deaths in the country are from euthanasia [itself false] – including 650 babies each year." — Anti-VAD correspondent
The flood of false associations continued at least until 2016. It was then that I conducted a scholarly, forensic and exhaustive investigation into the Groningen Protocol, its history and its use, as well as documenting the trail of religious institutions running the "650 babies" association story up the media flagpole. I published a paper on it.
What's happened since then?
For appropriate reference, in the nine years immediately preceding the Protocol, there were 22 cases of neonatal euthanasia in the Netherlands.
That's not per year. It's the total over nine years. An average of a bit over two a year. Not 650.
And since regulation?
The LZA-LP has just released its 2022-23 report on neonatal euthanasia cases, so we're now up to date. And the figures are:
That is, in 9 years prior to the Groningen Protocol there were 22 cases, while in twice the period after its introduction (18 years), there were 3.
The findings show that shining a light on practice helps improve it. And that VAD, whose numbers have increased in the Netherlands, is not associated with a concomitant rise (but rather a major drop) in the small number of neonatal euthanasia cases.
I've yet to see any of the sources who spread "650 babies euthanised every year" misinformation publish a correction or refer to the LZA-LP annual reports. I wouldn't hold my breath, either.
More of the same
The "650 babies" caper is still doing the rounds.
Take Lord Alton of Liverpool for example. Last year he gave an address to a Catholic Social Thought forum, in which, after invoking Nazi Germany, he said:
"For those who would contend that infant euthanasia in the Netherlands is only permitted for rare and exceptional, cases, a Dutch commission on euthanasia argued in 2013 that as many as 650 infants should be eligible for the practice in the country each year." — Lord Aston of Liverpool
Actually, it was the Dutch medical association, not the Dutch euthanasia commission. It was 650 babies die, not "should be eligible for euthanasia". And the already small numbers have radically dropped, not risen.
But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Saturday 14th October 2023 at 2:40am
Branka van der Linden on the anti-VAD "HOPE" website
I haven’t written for a while, but was prompted to do so by my friend and colleague Ian Wood. He pointed me to an email just sent about by Branka van der Linden of the anti-VAD “HOPE” blog site.
I've written about Ms van der Linden's musings before, including:
In her email, Ms van der Linden wrote provocatively against the Netherlands’ voluntary assisted dying (VAD) law, citing a recently-published medical journal study of Dutch VAD cases that involved people with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder (or both). The study is a legitimate examination of cases published by the Dutch Euthanasia Commissions, and contains numerous observations and some qualifications.
The first whopper
Mr van der Linden cherry-picks a single item from the study — that a majority of qualifying cases examined reported feeling socially isolated and lonely — and presses that into strong emotional words about “not caring” for people.
She failed to identify any other important aspect of either the study, or Dutch law, including:
The article reported that two thirds (67%) of the cases had profound somatic (physical) conditions as well. Comorbidities are very common in Dutch VAD cases.
The Dutch law requires:
The request to be well-considered
The patient’s suffering to be lasting and unbearable
The patient to be fully informed
The patient holding the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution, and
The attending doctor consulting a second doctor who also furnishes a written opinion about the qualification criteria.
So much for context and balance.
And she goes on.
The second whopper
Ms van der Linden then categorically and confidently states that:
“Like every other country that has legalised euthanasia, the debate in the Netherlands was initially about euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses. That has now shifted to approving requests for euthanasia for people with autism. This is the inevitable trajectory once a jurisdiction approves euthanasia laws.”
So much hyperbole. Let’s examine the facts:
Netherlands: The Dutch VAD law was legislated in 2001 and came into effect early 2002. It allowed non-terminal cases (including psychological) to qualify right from the outset.
Netherlands: Prior to the legislation, there was a period, from the 1980s, where VAD was approved by regulation (not legislation). Was that for terminal-only cases? Nope. Right from the outset, Dutch law permitted non-terminal cases.
So, Ms van der Linden’s claims about the Netherlands are foundationally false.
Now, on to the “inevitable trajectory” claim.
Belgium: Changed from terminal-only to non-terminal? Nope. (Non-terminal from the outset.)
Luxembourg: Changed from terminal-only to non-terminal? Nope. (Non-terminal from the outset.)
Switzerland: Changed? Nope. (There have been no statutory qualification criteria since 1942.)
USA states:Any of the lawful USA states, including Oregon where VAD law has been in effect since 1997, changed from terminal-only to non-terminal? Nope.
Australia:Any state changed from terminal-only to non-terminal? Nope.
Ms van der Linden’s claim is contradicted by so much evidence.
Canada: There is one notable jurisdiction where qualification criteria have changed, and that’s Canada. Changes have been many years in the making, involving nation-wide conversation and debate, steered by its legislature and most senior court. Many points have been thrashed out as representatives consider the issues and settle on what a majority of the nation's own citizenry (not Ms van der Linden) believes is appropriate.
Importantly, it’s worth noting that even with additions to qualification criteria set in law in Canada, they are still considerably more restrictive than in Switzerland — because Swiss legislation doesn’t stipulate any qualifying criteria. Yet Switzerland’s assisted dying rate is lower than Canada’s. It’s a cultural difference.
Changes to qualification criteria are very much the exception, not “inevitable” as Ms van der Linden wrongly states.
Two claims — both whoppers
It’s hard to imagine that Ms van der Linden, being so immersed in the VAD subject as she is, could be so unaware of the most fundamental facts. But maybe she is, despite the facts being easy to source. Such ignorance renders her an “unreliable witness”.
To my mind, repeatedly failing to establish the actual facts while confidently stating “counter-facts” that are not true — especially in order to influence others in support of one's personal ideological position — would be consistent with an impoverished sense of ethics.
Conclusion
I admire and respect Ms van der Linden’s passion for doggedly pursuing what she believes is right, and I’m thankful we live in a robust democracy that allows people to express and debate views consistent with their internal values.
What, I argue, isn’t worthy of admiration or respect is to repeatedly misinform one’s audience by failing to undertake the most basic checking to determine if what one is saying is fundamentally true, let alone balanced or contextually relevant.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Friday 18th March 2022 at 1:00am
Anglican archbishop Kanishka Raffel doesn't know the views of his own flock on VAD
I've written previously about bishops demonstrating their ignorance, as in the example of Catholic Bishop Tim Harris who presumed most or all of his flock opposes voluntary assisted dying (VAD), when in fact a significant majority support it. This time it's the Anglican Sydney diocese archbishop who's loudly flaunting his biases.
Sydney Anglican archbishop Kanishka Raffel (pictured on the diocese website above), has launched a program calling on NSW parliamentarians to reject a bill that, with a large number of safeguards, seeks to make VAD lawful in the state. NSW is the last state in the nation that still outlaws the practice.
The problem is, the archbishop is clearly backing his own personal beliefs and interests when he calls upon Anglicans to sign and share his petition calling for the unanimous rejection of the bill. That's because most Australian Anglicans, including those in NSW, support the law reform.
In 2019, academic pollsters VoxPop obtained the attitudes of more than 155,000 NSW voters regarding VAD. The views of NSW Anglicans are shown, by electorate, in Figure 1. Electorates with an asterisk are (with some very minor boundary differences) those within the archbishop's own diocese.
Figure 1: Attitudes of NSW Anglicans towards VAD law reform. Source: VoxPop 2019. * Electorates in the archbishop's own diocese.
Immediately obvious is that most NSW Anglicans, including those in the archbishop's own diocese, are in favour of VAD law reform. That is, NSW MPs would be most wise to thoughtfully consider the bill and pass it. To oppose the bill would be to invite the wrath of most voters across all electorates in the state.
The archbishop might attempt to argue that his flock would change their minds if only they "understood". But that would be a hubris-based claim that those of differing views are somehow uninformed or mentally defective because they disagree.
Indeed, as I have written in a major research series about religiosity in Australia, this profound disconnect between senior clergy and their flocks is a key reason that Australians have been deserting religion in droves. That applies especially to the Anglican church, whose membership plummeted by 28% in just the fifteen years between the 2001 and 2016 censuses. And subsequent polling suggests it has fallen further since then.
To argue the "evils" of VAD, archbishop Raffel also teamed up with well-known Catholic anti-VAD campaigners Margaret Somerville and Father Frank Brennan. More of the usual connections...
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Thursday 23rd May 2019 at 2:39am
Palliative care specialist advances incoherent reasons to oppose VAD.
Director of Palliative Care at Cabrini Health, Associate Professor Natasha Michael, yesterday published an opinion piece in The Age newspaper. In it, she rails against Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying (VAD) Act which comes into effect on 19th June. Instead she articulates an arrogant and prescriptive view of what Australians should and shouldn’t be allowed, consistent with Catholic dogma, as I uncover.
Michael, along with fellow devout Catholic Dr Stephen Parnis, ‘tirelessly’ opposed the introduction of Victoria’s VAD law. They continue to actively oppose it, and her opinion piece reveals her spurious ‘reasoning’.
The Catholic Healthcare brick wall
More than half of all palliative care services in Australia are delivered through Catholic institutions, of which Cabrini Health is one arm. These institutions have determined that VAD will not be available in any of their facilities or via any of their services, even if the individual patient and doctor are supportive.
This arbitrarily limits access to lawful choice by citizens.
Confected ‘institutional conscience’
I say ‘arbitrarily’ because ‘institutional conscience’ is a confection: it doesn’t really exist. Only real persons have conscience. The fabricated dictates of any institution — presented as ‘moral rules’ — extinguish the actual real conscience of those who exist within it: at least, those whose conscience differs.
The upshot is that a specific cohort of religious, celibate men in Rome dictate whether Australian citizens can or can’t obtain lawful healthcare services from half the service providers.
So let’s examine what the institutional ‘conscience’ has to say.
Disgraceful framing in headline
“We can’t let voluntary assisted dying negate our commitment to the ill”, Michael’s article headline screams.
Firstly, VAD is not available to the “ill”. It’s available only to those with terminal illness and intolerable suffering, according to 68 criteria.
Secondly, Michael invokes a false dichotomy of “negating a commitment”. VAD does not “negate a commitment”. Indeed, to fail to hear and respect a persistent, fully informed and tested request for VAD that meets all the criteria is to negate palliative care’s commitment to honour the patient’s deeply held values, beliefs and decisions.
Medical-coloured glasses
“The introduction of voluntary assisted dying legislation in Victoria on June 19 will remind us of the occasional failure of medicine,” Michael says.
That’s it. The patient’s death is a failure of medicine, as though a person’s death is a medical event rather than a deeply human and private one of personhood.
It also flags the common but immature medical assumption that “death = failure”. Death is inevitable, not a “failure”. The key question about death for people with terminal illness is “how”, and Michael presumes to prescribe the “how”: being receptacles for interventions that she and her colleagues provide.
Let’s be clear. Many people are helped enormously by palliative care. That’s a great credit to the discipline’s specialists.
However, as Palliative Care Australia acknowledges, even the best palliative care can’t relieve all excruciating, debilitating and humiliating refractory symptoms.
Michael’s answer to this sometimes “failure” of medical interventions? Deliver more interventions, whether the patient considers them consistent with his own values, beliefs and circumstances or not.
They’re very heavily medical-coloured glasses indeed.
Three faux ‘threats’
Michael then invokes three faux ‘threats’ supposedly caused by lawful VAD in Victoria.
Faux threat 1: “Validating suicide as an acceptable choice”.
Michael exposes her own bias here: that all self-hastening of deaths are the same — that there is no meaningful difference between a dying person who is fully informed and whose rational choice for a peaceful assisted death has been extensively tested, with the violent and impulsive action of a person suffering a temporary, resolvable personal crisis, be it mental illness, substance abuse, intimate relationship breakdown or other circumstance.
Michael is pretty much on her own here. Most Australian doctors make a clear distinction between these very different contexts.
Faux threat 2: “accepting substandard medical care by supporting the lack of rigour in defining [VAD] eligibility”.
Michael overlooks that there is a major lack of rigour in existing, lawful end-of-life choices.
There are no statutory requirements for a patient to refuse medical treatment, even if the treatment would be life-saving.
There are no statutory requirements for the voluntary refusal of food and fluids in order to die, either.
More critically, despite terminal sedation being a common end-of-life medical practice but ethically problematic (including that it may hasten death and may not alleviate intractable symptoms), not only is there no statutory requirement for its practice, but neither the Australian Medical Association nor Palliative Care Australia have official guidelines on its practice.
Thus, in railing against the staggering 68 standards of practice prescribed in Victoria’s VAD law — vastly more than any other in the world — as a “lack of rigour”, Michael makes no mention of three other major life-end choices that have no such standards, including her own discipline’s terminal sedation.
Doctor, heal thyself (and thine own systems).
Faux threat 3: “introducing into the healthcare curriculum the intentional ending of life as acceptable medical treatment”
Michael creates a misleading impression here. By referring to ‘curriculum’ you might think that all medical students would have to undergo training on how to end lives, or be ‘indoctrinated’ to accept VAD. That is not true.
To be able to prescribe lethal medication under Victoria’s legislation, the doctor must undergo additional training in relation to that procedure. Doctors will only receive the training if they self-nominate for it: it’s not compulsory.
If, by ‘curriculum’ Michael means only “VAD might be discussed” in medical school, then she would have to articulate why termination of pregnancy (to which the Catholic church objects) should not be discussed, either. Nor the transfusion of blood, since many Jehovah’s Witnesses object to the procedure.
Own failure in palliative care principles
Nowhere in her opinion piece does Michael acknowledge that the patient may deeply hold values and beliefs that validly favour VAD. Thus, Michael offends the first principle of palliative care which is to make the patient the centre of care and to honour as much as possible the patient’s values, beliefs, attitudes and wishes.
Indeed, in her conclusion, Michael states that palliative care “remains committed to the ongoing accompaniment of our patients. Not abandoning them” and which is “the only plausible method of compassion and care.”
This surely is the most egregious and arrogant self-interest of all: patients must subject themselves to being accompanied by palliative care staff and their ‘interventions’ whether they want more or not.
On the contrary, to fail to hear and respect a genuine, informed and persistent request for a peaceful hastened death from a dying patient for whom this accords most firmly with his deeply held values and beliefs, is to abandon the patient.
Conclusion
Michael is of course entitled to her personal stance, and I celebrate her right to hold her views: for herself.
However, her ‘requirement’ that all Victorians be denied access to an option that four out of five believe to be moral — and instead subject themselves to interventions administered by Michael and her colleagues — reveals an unattractive arrogance.
It’s a shame that Catholic bioethics doesn’t teach more about reflection, especially as to whether one’s own beliefs ought to dictate and limit the choices of others with equally firmly held, though different, values.
In the meantime, Victorians are pawns to the tyranny of the Vatican as to whether there is a local healthcare facility that will hear and examine their request for a peaceful, assisted death in the face of terminal illness.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Wednesday 10th April 2019 at 8:39pm
Branka van der Linden on the "HOPE" website.
HOPE’s Director, Branka van der Linden, is at it again, foisting more misleading information about voluntary assisted dying (VAD) on unwilling members of Parliament. I expose the rot and provide some background on Mrs van der Linden.
Van der Linden’s latest email to all WA MPs states:
Subject: WA Report relies on troubling Belgian study
[MP Salutation] --
Did you know that a study showing that one person in Belgium is euthanised every three days without their explicit consent also found that:
in more than 77 per cent of cases, the decision was not discussed with the patient;
in more than half of cases, the patient had never expressed a desire for their life to be ended; and
in more than half of the cases, the reason given was because killing the patient was the wish of the family?
Did you know that the WA majority report cited this study as evidence of assisted suicide and euthanasia reducing the incidence of unlawful activity?
Warm regards,
Branka van der Linden
Director, HOPE
Van der Linden’s method is to create an impression of calumny against VAD law reform. She uses a nice PR formula of three bullet points per communication. With repetition. It’s a method I expressly warned the WA Parliament to watch out for in my submission to its inquiry. The growing list of emails is now starting to look like ‘harassment’.
So let’s look at van der Linden’s claims — again. She’s talking about non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE) — again.
In her email to MPs, she complains that the WA majority report on end-of-life choices cited the study as evidence of the NVE rate reducing when VAD is legalised.
Well, the WA majority report formed that correct conclusion because that’s precisely what the cited study reported: drops in the NVE rates in both the Netherlands and Belgium after their euthanasia Acts came into effect in 2002.
While concerns ought to be expressed about the deliberate hastening of death without an explicit request from the patient with a view to improving knowledge and practices, it’s not caused by VAD laws as van der Linden desperately tries to imply.
Here are highly relevant things the cited study’s authors had to say, but van der Linden astonishingly ignores:
“The use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request are not confined to countries where physician-assisted death is legal.”; and
“[NVE’s] occurrence has not risen since the legalisation of euthanasia in Belgium. On the contrary, the rate dropped from 3.2% in 1998 to 1.8% in 2007. In the Netherlands, the rate dropped slightly after legalization, from 0.7% to 0.4%” [The Belgian rate was 1.7% in a more recent replication of the research.]; and
The NVE cases found in the study “in reality resembles more intensified pain alleviation with a ‘double effect’, and death in many cases was not hastened.”
But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Van der Linden’s recent emails about VAD to MPs reveal astonishing ignorance and a willingness to overlook critical evidence contrary to her position, contained in the very source she cites.
The superficiality of her cherry-picking is kind of embarrassing: she holds an arts/law degree from Australian National University, so you’d expect more intelligent engagement.
It begs the question: who is Branka van der Linden? The “HOPE” website reveals little if anything.
Who is Branka van der Linden?
Branka Van der Linden is the current Director of anti-VAD website “HOPE (Preventing euthanasia and assisted suicide)”. HOPE is an initiative of the Australian Family Association, a Catholic lobby group established by Australia’s most famous lay Catholic, B. A. Santamaria.
HOPE’s founding Director and van der Linden’s predecessor, was Mr Paul Russell, the former Senior Officer for Family and Life at the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide.
It turns out that Branka van der Linden (née Seselja) is a sister of Catholic ACT Senator Zed Seselja who voted against David Leyonhjelm's recent Restoring Territory Rights (to legislate on VAD) Bill. But there’s more. Far more.
Branka, who attended Catholic St Clair’s College primary school and Padua Catholic High School, both in the ACT, is a “senior lawyer” at the Truth Justice and Healing Council, which provides services to the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference and Catholic Religious Australia in relation to the Catholic Church’s response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
She’s advisory legal counsel for the lay Catholic St Vincent de Paul Society Canberra/Goulburn Territory Council. (And good on her for supporting this philanthropic work.)
She and her husband Shawn represent (or at least represented) the Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council, and were representatives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn on the National Family Pilgrimage to the (Catholic) World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia in 2015.
Husband Shawn has been described by the church as a “loyal Catholic servant” for nine years of service as the director of CatholicLIFE at the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn.
And as if this weren’t clear enough, a sample of Branka’s Facebook Likes is equally informative:
A sample of Branka van der Linden’s Facebook Likes
Archbishop Anthony Fisher (Catholic)
Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila (Catholic)
Archbishop Mark Coleridge (Catholic)
Bishop Robert Barron (Catholic)
Marist College Canberra Faith Formation (Catholic)
St Thomas the Apostle Kambah (Catholic)
Campion College (Catholic)
Teaching Catholic Kids
Ascension (Catholic Church)
CathFamily
St Therese of Lixieux (Catholic)
Dominican Sisters of Saint Cecilia in Australia (Catholic)
Fusion Youth Group (Catholic)
St Clare’s College (Catholic)
Marist Canberra Football Club (Catholic)
Light To The Nations (Catholic)
Catholic Voices USA
Centre for Faith Enrichment (Catholic)
World Meeting of Families 2015 (Catholic)
Quidenham Carmelite Monastery (Catholic)
Denver Catholic
Catholic Mission – Canberra & Goulburn
XT3 (Catholic youth association)
Missionaries of God’s Love Darwin (Catholic)
Marist College Canberra (Catholic)
Life, Marriage & Family Office (Catholic)
Infant Jesus Parish, Morley (Catholic)
MGL Priests and Brothers (Catholic)
Catholic Mission – Sydney, Broken Bay, Parramatta
Youth Mission Team Australia (Catholic)
Summer School of Evangelisation – Bathurst (Catholic)
Missionaries of God’s Live Sisters (Catholic)
Sisterhood National Catholic Women’s Movement
My Family My Faith (Catholic)
Catholic Talk
The Catholic Weekly
The Catholic Leader
Mercatornet (Catholic blog site)
BioEdge (Catholic blog site)
It’s clear that Branka van der Linden, like her predecessor Paul Russell, is very deeply invested in Catholic tradition. I will be the first to say I firmly believe that is entirely her right.
Yet how curious it is that while repeatedly advancing (secular) misinformation about VAD, Branka van der Linden doesn’t mention her profound religious convictions. It's surprisingly similar to the approach evidenced by Catholic Professor of Ethics, Margaret Somerville; and Catholic (then) Victorian MP Daniel Mulino; and Catholic Editor of The Australian, Paul Kelly (who warmly quotes Mulino); and Catholic director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Alex Schadenberg...
You get the idea: perhaps there's a pattern?
One possible source of pattern
What was it that the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, said at the 2011 Catholic Bioethics Conference in relation to opposing the legalisation of VAD?
"The most effective messengers may also vary: bishops, for instance, are not always the best public spokespeople for the Church on such matters."; and
"...the man or woman in the street ... may well be open to persuasion that permissive laws and practices cannot be effectively narrowed to such circumstances"; and
"We need to research and propose new messages also and carefully consider who should deliver them, where and how."
Nowhere in his address does Fisher propose actually testing whether his calamitous assumptions about VAD are true.
Gosh, another coincidence.
Epilogue
I want to be absolutely clear that I am not using a person’s religious conviction as a reason to dismiss their ideas. That’s called an ad hominem attack: an attack against the person rather than the substance of the argument (even assuming it has any substance to assess).
What I have done here and elsewhere, and I will continue to do, is to expose arguments that are false, misleading, illogical or otherwise unmeritorious on the basis of empirical evidence and reasoning.
It just turns out that organised misinformation against VAD law reform comes from deeply religious circles, and those religious circles often avoid mentioning their religiosity while spreading such nonsense under a ‘veneer of secularism’.
It’s in the public’s interest to understand where most organised misinformation against VAD comes from.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Monday 1st April 2019 at 9:59pm
A forensic analysis exposes Theo Boer's smoke and mirrors on 'suicide contagion'
In my most recent article in the Journal of Assisted Dying, I forensically analyse Dutch ethicist Professor Theo Boer’s 2017 paper purporting to find suicide contagion from assisted dying in the Netherlands. It doesn’t go well for Professor Boer, to put it mildly. You can find the full article here.
I also find an astonishing coincidence that occurred in 2014, the year Boer went feral against the Dutch euthanasia law.
Multiple fatal flaws
In the ‘analysis’ outlined in his article, Boer commits a number of fatal scientific no-noes, including failing to analyse the variable he actually surmised might cause suicide contagion, cherry-picking data that supported his conclusion while ignoring or offhandedly dismissing data at odds with his conclusion, and wrongly forming a causative conclusion from a simple correlation while failing to control for any confounding variables of which there are many.
A litany of scientific offences
In addition to the fatal flaws, Boer’s article contains numerous other scientific and academic offences. My forensic analysis concludes:
“In summary, Boer’s article contains a litany of scientific and scholarly failures. Its speculations are ill-informed, poorly-assembled, incoherent in places and mostly uncited, the data cherry-picked and invalidly interpreted, and the laissez faire methodology incapable of validly supporting its conclusion.
Boer conjures up mere smoke and mirrors to argue suicide contagion from VAD in the Netherlands. The article should be retracted.”
The article also reflects badly on the journal that published this smoke and mirrors: the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health. Neither peer review nor editorial effort identified or attempted to correct any of the nonsense in the article.
What was he thinking?
Professor Boer is an expert in Reformist Protestant theology. As a religious ethicist, it’s astonishing that he considered himself suited to conducting and publishing a ‘causative’ scientific study.
In his article, Boer proposed VAD as the only factor to contribute to changes in the Netherlands’ general suicide rate (and dismissed the Belgian data which contradicted his theory).
In reality, numerous risk and protective factors affect the suicide rate, and in the Netherlands as I’ve established using their official government data, just one factor — unemployment — explains 80% of the variance in the Dutch suicide rate since 1960. Boer casually dismisses this without providing the faintest fume of an empirical analysis himself.
Boer’s article did little but amply demonstrate his underlying anchoring and confirmation bias on the subject, his unfamiliarity with the complexity of suicide, and ignorance of proper scientific principles.
For good measure, he casually threw in a comment about “suicide contagion” or copycat suicides, without understanding that in suicide, copying is the method of causing death. But by definition, general suiciders don’t follow the provisions of the euthanasia Act.
His endeavour made as little sense as me writing a conclusive article about Reformist Protestant theology, about which I know very little.
A copycat analysis?
Coincidentally, the structure of the storyline, the litany of scientific offences committed, and the conclusions reached in Boer’s article were surprisingly similar to those in an ‘analysis’ of Oregon’s suicide rate in another paper by Jones and Paton. Like Boer, Jones and Paton start out by surmising that assisted dying ought to lower the general suicide rate, and conclude the opposite.
Boer approvingly cites the Jones and Paton article, even though a forensic analysis found no fewer than ten major scientific flaws in it and provided multiple sources of empirical evidence at odds with the article’s conclusions.
But Boer manages to cock even the citation up, referring to the article’s authors as Holmes and Paton.
Will the real Theo Boer please stand up?
Boer notes that he’s always been a euthanasia sceptic. Nevertheless, as a Reformist Protestant, he had long accepted assisted dying in “emergency” situations, of which intolerable and otherwise unrelievable suffering is a ‘qualifying’ criterion, and which is the substance of the Dutch euthanasia law (it’s regarded in legal circles as a law of “necessity”). He also opined that the Dutch model was a decent one that other jurisdictions could emulate.
Boer served as the ethicist member of one of the five Dutch euthanasia review commissions, examining every case reported to it between 2005 and 2014.
In 2014 he publicly quit his post on the review committee, slamming the Dutch assisted dying system. He’s been badmouthing it to anyone who will listen, since.
In preparation for this analysis, I asked Boer if his vocal opposition to the Dutch assisted dying model was now based on an in-principle opposition to assisted dying, or only in regard to more recent practice under the Dutch euthanasia Act. Despite a couple of iterations, I didn’t get a specific answer.
The law hasn’t changed
Here’s the point. While Boer repeatedly opines that things changed radically in the Netherlands around 2007, the country’s euthanasia Act hasn’t changed since it was passed in 2001 (and came into effect in 2002). Not. One. Word.
In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court determined in 1994 that individuals with mental (in the absence of concomitant physical) illness could qualify under the then regulatory euthanasia framework, and it was found that cases occurred every year.
And the 2001 Act formalised in statute the regulatory framework that had existed since at least 1984, when the Dutch medical association first published guidelines for euthanasia.
Thus, the Act reflects very long-standing practice, and it hasn’t changed since it was enacted, in contrast to Boer’s claim that things have radically changed.
Flimsy and incoherent ‘ethics’ part 1
This brings us to the first fatal incoherence of Boer’s “ethics”: that he now opposes the law because people with psychiatric illness and other conditions are, in slightly increasing numbers, availing themselves of the euthanasia law. It is these cases against which Boer rails, despite having previously said the Dutch model is a good example for the world, and having actively participated in the system.
Boer’s flip flop is to argue that a law that permits assisted dying under a range of medical conditions (and has done so for decades) is a good law, provided some of those who might qualify (like psychiatric cases) never use it.
Try and explain the ethics behind that position.
Flimsy and incoherent ‘ethics’ part 2
The second fatal incoherence of Boer’s ‘ethics’ is his repeated complaint that until around 2007, the numbers of euthanasia cases was “somewhat steady”, but increased after that. Never mind that the majority of the increase was still in relation to terminal cancer: Boer simply railed at the increased numbers as a major problem.
But, try and explain using ethical principles, why it is appropriate for 2,000 people a year to avail themselves of the euthanasia law, but inappropriate for 4,000 (who all qualify)?
Indeed, the Dutch euthanasia Act makes no mention of numbers: there is no legislated limit on the count of people who might choose to use the law. Rather, it is based on due care criteria, outlining the circumstances of who may qualify, and the process by which they may.
The legislature’s intent remains unchanged and is still being adhered to, though more people, the majority of whom have terminal cancer, are using the law.
It’s astonishing that a Professor of Ethics fails to reflect on the fatal incoherence of his own ‘ethical’ arguments.
What happened?
Boer, who had supported and promoted the Dutch euthanasia model suddenly and incoherently changed his position to vocally opposed in 2014. What happened?
One factor might shed some light. In 2014, Boer was appointed to the endowed professorship of Lindeboom Chair in Ethics in Healthcare at Kampen Theological University.
While Kampen Theological University is a Dutch Reformist Protestant institution and therefore may support assisted dying in “emergency” cases, the Lindeboom Institute, which endows Boer’s eponymous professorship, is less understanding.
The Lindeboom Institute was co-founded by several orthodox Christian institutions and cooperates with the Netherlands Evangelical University which studies science from an creationist Biblical perspective.
The Institute demands “biblically sound medical ethics” along with “Christian norms and values”. You’d be left wondering what that actually means, until you find on its website that the Board’s role is “the protection of people at all stages of life”.
In addition, participating organisations that fund the Lindeboom endowment, like the Dutch Patients Association, Pro Life Health Insurance and the Foundation for Christian Philosophy, are strongly opposed to assisted dying in any form.
It turns out that the authors of that other ‘analysis’ that commits numerous similar scientific offences which generate smoke and mirrors, Jones and Paton, are devout conservative Catholics.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Saturday 11th August 2018 at 11:33pm
Plenty of misinformation will be advanced to oppose Senator David Leyonhjelm's Restoring Territory Rights Bill.
In 1996 the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI) came into effect. Just four people had used the Act when seven months later an Act of the Federal Parliament extinguished the NT law, by cancelling the Territories’ authority to enact it.
This week, the Senate [federal parliament] debates the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill, sponsored by libertarian Senator David Leyonhjelm. If the Bill passes both houses, the Territories will again have the authority to legislate the matter of assisted dying.
Opponents of lawful assisted dying have been sharpening their knives to ensure that Senator Leyonhjelm’s Bill fails and that Territorians remain second-class citizens. In this post I expose one of the desperate and disgraceful pieces of misinformation opponents use to try and curry fear about law reform.
Opponent signals
There are signals from many quarters that assisted dying opponents are dragging out the tired old argument that indigenous Australians are too fearful of assisted dying to allow reinstatement of the Territories’ legislative authority.
The signals are clear, though so far mostly behind the scenes. Nevertheless, they predict a full onslaught of invalid “fear” claims in the parliamentary debate this week.
Populist beginning of the misinformation
Since the NT ROTI Act there have been ongoing claims that indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Australians are wholly and deeply fearful of assisted dying law. A chief flag-waver of this proposition is Jesuit Priest Father Frank Brennan. He’s not only argued this line repeatedly in public, but promoted it to at least one parliamentary inquiry.
Fr Brennan likes to frame this argument to suggest that it’s uniquely substantive and persuasive, while other highly relevant information is merely “suggestion”.
“There was a suggestion these fears were whipped up by the churches and other conservative groups.” — Fr Brank Brennan
The “indigenous fears” opinion has been widely disseminated by other Catholics, including now-disgracedFr John Fleming in a paper on behalf of the Catholic Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, and by Mr Paul Russell, Director of “HOPE”, a ginger group established by the Catholic Australian Family Association.
Classic cherry-picking
I’ve called out Mr Russell and others before for cherry-picking information to suit their arguments. And here we are again. In this blog, Mr Russell correctly reports that indigenous NT parliamentarian Mr Wes Lanhupuy voted in favour of the ROTI Act, but dismisses his vote as the result of “pressure”.
What Mr Russell disgracefully omits from his plug is that Mr Lanhupuy was directly involved in the consultation of indigenous communities, and said this in his parliamentary speech:
“The church has been a major voice. … I heard in the community that some of the churches were telling people that they should not support the bill basically because of their religious beliefs. No information whatsoever was given as a reason for that. No information was given whereby people could determine their own beliefs. That was disappointing.” — NT indigenous parliamentarian Mr Wes Lanhupuy (Hansard)
Disgraceful religious prejudice
But there’s more. At the time the federal parliament was debating its Bill to overturn the ROTI Act in 1997, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee conducted a formal investigation and published a Senate report, Consideration of legislation referred to the Committee: Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996. Its 204 pages make interesting reading.
For example, Mr Creed Lovegrove, a former senior Northern Territory public servant leading the Native Affairs Office, reported to the Senate Committee:
“I express my concern, not at the right of certain ideologists to have their say, but at the misrepresentations some were making to people over whom they have an emotional hold. Where this group happens to be Aboriginal, I believe some of the frightening lies they were told about the subject were a psychological and emotional exploitation of them, as blatant as any that has ever occurred in the Territory.” — p 44
…and reported to him by a group of senior and influential Aboriginals:
“They reckon the government is going to round up all the real sick people and those with V.D. and things like that and finish them off.” — p 45
…and on page 44 of the report, the Northern Territory government noted that at least one Aboriginal community wanted to hear the full story about euthanasia, not just the Church story.
Fake news — avoiding healthcare
There were also widespread claims that indigenous Northern Territorians were avoiding presenting to medical centres for healthcare for fear of being euthanased. However, the Senate report noted (p 52) that the claim was controversial, and that the Northern Territory government had provided statistics to show no significant decrease in presentations for treatment.
In a classic opponent manoeuvre when the data yet again didn’t fit the story, it was then claimed (p 52) that future data could show a decrease in presentations.
Morally bankrupt argument
But that’s a morally bankrupt argument. You don’t deny Jack the right to drive a car because Jill has an ill-informed phobia that Jack’s right is likely to contribute to her own death. Rather, the ethical approach is to provide Jack with his right and to provide Jill with education.
And that’s precisely what the NT government did. In today’s money, it stumped up $500k for education programs, and those programs were beginning to take effect. In testimony to the Committee, Reverend Dr Djiniyini Gondarra (opposed to the legislation) conceded that the education efforts had been somewhat effective in overcoming fears about the ROTI Act (p 52).
Ironic reverse discrimination
Perhaps one of the most ironic aspects of church-led fear of the ROTI Act was the Act’s “reverse discrimination” itself. The Act required, if the doctor and patient did not share the same first language, that a qualified and authorised translator be engaged before the patient might qualify for an assisted death.
Given the rarity of qualified and authorised translators, especially in remote communities, indigenous Northern Territorians would have had significantly less access to use the law than their white, city-based fellow citizens.
Putting it into perspective
Setting aside the dreadfully misinformed fear of assisted dying law and its stoking by churches, the question arises as to the prevalence of indigenous residents in the Territories: both Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. I’ve retrieved Australian Bureau of Statistics data from the 2016 census to answer that question (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Australian Territory indigenous populations Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 census
Indigenous peoples represent a quarter of the population in the NT (25.5%), and a tiny minority (1.6%) in the ACT. Across the two Territories, that’s 10.3% of the population. Even if all the indigenous citizens opposed assisted dying law reform (which is clearly not the case), their impact on overall attitude would be minor.
By way of comparison, most national polls find around 12% of Australians opposed to assisted dying law reform. And, as I’ve factually demonstrated, almost all of that is faith-based. Such ‘fears’ are not a valid reason to prohibit others from pursuing a choice they deeply feel is moral and justified.
Playing the race card
Indeed, if opponents were intent on justifying the denial of a parliament to legislate for assisted dying on the basis of supposed indigenous attitude — playing the race card — then they must also by corollary campaign for the denial of State parliaments to legislate. That's because there are nearly four times as many indigenous Australians in NSW (216,170) and three times as many in Queensland (186,483) as there are in the Northern Territory (58,246) [2016 census data].
To argue one and not the other is to flip-flop.
Contact your Senators now
Church-whipped fear about assisted dying law amongst indigenous Australians is appalling and to be condemned, as is spreading false claims about a supposed reduction in presentations for medical care.
Senators will be inundated with false claims as they contemplate the Leyonhjelm Bill — including that indigenous Territorians are terrified of assisted dying law. (Lyeonhjelm’s Bill doesn’t legalise assisted dying: it only restores Territory parliament rights to consider the reform.)
It’s critical that Senators also hear from supporters of Territory rights — that Territorians not be treated as second-class citizens compared to State-based citizens.
To that end YOU can do something right now! Use the Go Gentle Australiasubmission page to send a message of support to your State or Territory Senators now. Go Gentle make it so easy, by showing you who your Senators are by merely entering your address.
Disclaimer: I do notclaim, suggest, imply or impute that any individuals named in this article were personally or individually responsible for, or were involved in, any misinformation being provided to indigenous Australians about assisted dying law.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Tuesday 10th October 2017 at 7:58am
The Parliament of Victoria is currently debating an assisted dying Bill.
As the Parliament of Victoria prepares to debate an assisted dying Bill, South Australian Catholic anti-assisted-dying lobbyist Mr Paul Russell is at it again. This time he's sent a missive to Victorian politicians shouting about, amongst other things, a crisis of assisted dying numbers in Washington state. He’s conveniently cherry-picked his arguments again.
Mr Russell wrote that in Washington state:
“deaths from lethal drugs prescribed under the Act have nearly quadrupled (376%) from 51 in 2010 to 192 in 2016.”
His latest claim extends his misinformation crown title.
Don’t get me wrong. He cites the correct raw data figures for Washington. But he packages them up handily with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) wrapping, all tied up with the most sinister bow he can muster.
I’ve criticised the use of uncontextualized raw data before, and I do so again.
The relevant facts
Washington state legalised assisted dying by ballot in 2008. The following year the law was put into practice, and 2010 was the first full year of its operation.
Here’s the rate of assisted deaths as a proportion of all deaths in Washington state for all the years on record. As you can see, the rate hasn’t even reached one half of one percent of all deaths in 2016.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
0.07%
0.11%
0.14%
0.17%
0.23%
0.24%
0.30%
0.35%
Never ones to miss out on an opportunity to spread FUD, if it were just one case last year and two this year, assisted dying opponents would be shouting from the rooftops: “Crisis!! 100% increase!!”. But in reality, only a small minority use the law, yet thousands of patients and their families are given comfort by the option being avaialble even if they don't use it. That message was made loud and clear by Oregon Senator Ginny Burdick. Washington's Death With Dignity Act is modelled on Oregon's, and Oregon's Act has been in effect for twenty years.
A Catholic trifecta
Of course in his missive, Mr Russell, like his fellow Catholic whom I’ve also called out for misinformation, Prof. Margaret Somerville, avoids referring to Swiss data. And their fellow Catholic Mr Daniel Mulino, who furnished a minority report to the Victorian Parliament’s recommendations on end of life choices, a report I’ve also called out for stunning misinformation, fudges his numbers about Switzerland, referring to data from 1998 without further context.
Why do these lobbyists avoid or selectively refer to the Swiss situation? Because the actual data is an inconvenient truth to their FUD story-telling.
An inconvenient truth
Switzerland’s assisted dying law came into effect seventy-four years ago, in 1942. If just one person had used the law in 1942, using Mr Mulino’s favourite annual increase figure of 17.5%, that would equate to 110,338 people pursuing an assisted death in Switzerland in 2014.
I say 2014 because that’s the most recent year for which official Swiss Government assisted dying figures are available. And what was the actual figure in 2014? There were 742 cases of assisted dying amongst Swiss residents, and Dignitas reports that it assisted 198 foreign nationals. That’s a total of 940 assisted deaths.
Let’s add another 60 foreign-national assisted death cases from the much smaller Swiss society that provides accompaniment for foreigners. That makes around 1,000 cases in 2014, including all those who came from all over the world. And it’s less than one hundredth of the minimum rate the doomsayers predict by cherry-picking one statistic that suits their argument.
Swiss law has the fewest safeguards
The Swiss assisted dying law has none of the safeguards of the Washington law. By Mr Russell and Co’s reckoning, you’d think that the Swiss (and those who visit) would be dropping off like flies.
By way of further comparison, the doomsayer number of assisted deaths for 2014 (a minimum of 110,338 cases) is substantially greater than the total number of deaths in Switzerland that year: 63,938. It’s an obvious impossibility.
In 2014, the Swiss rate of assisted deaths including all the foreign nationals who came to use its law, was 1.5% of all deaths; and 1.2% for resident-only cases.
And the rate of assisted deaths in Luxembourg in 2014 (legalised in 2009), whose laws are much more liberal than Washington’s though stricter than Switzerland’s, was 0.17% of all deaths. It’s odd how the doomsayers don’t report Luxembourg data, either.
And what are these cases?
These are cases of people in extremis with no realistic prospect of relief or improvement, choosing a peaceful assisted death as a better option than being forced to prolong their torture, according to their own deeply-held beliefs, values and examined consciences.
Mr Russell believes they should be required to endure their torture. There is a point to it, he says: because it joins them “in some mysterious way to the sufferings of Christ”... whether others believe in Christ, or at least Mr Russell’s version of him, or not.
You won't find this degree of candour on his anti-assisted dying website, but you can find it at NewsWeekly, which is run by the National Civic Council (NCC), itself established by Australia's most famous and conservative lay Catholic, B. A. Santamaria. Mr Russell has been President of the NCC South Australian chapter.
It’s not the numbers, it’s the circumstances
To be clear, in no jurisdiction has its legislature enacted access to assisted dying on the basis of a numeric ceiling. They’ve enacted access on the basis of intolerable and unrelievable suffering. And to this day, those are the folks who may be granted access to an assisted death.
Conclusion
Again, Mr Russell (and colleagues) do themselves no favours by conspicuously cherry-picking the data they want to use, and wrapping it up in threatening garb to create FUD amongst politicians.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Thursday 14th September 2017 at 10:20pm
Another Catholic 'academic' spreads more misinformation. Photo: donaldytong
It’s very disappointing that Catholic theologian Dr Joel Hodge’s recent editorial in Fairfax media about assisted dying law reform contained misinformation: the same old tired and discredited story trotted out as though it's true. Dr Hodge also repeated an old and curiously one-sided (Catholic) examination of the hypothetical slippery slope.
Unhappily, the kind of misinformation that Dr Hodge advances muddies the waters and cruelly stands in the way of legislative action, which most Australians want.
An impeccable national survey conducted by scholars at Australian National University last year found 77% of Australians in favour of assisted dying law reform. Strong support (43%) outweighed strong opposition (4%) by more than ten to one. In the two states whose Parliaments are currently considering reform, NSW and Victoria, support stands at 75% and 79% respectively.
Non-religious support is 91%, and it’s high amongst Catholics (74%) and Anglicans (79%) as well. Bishops are jarringly out of step with the views of their flocks. And across the political spectrum, 87% of Greens, 80% of Labor, 77% of Coalition and 69% of minor party voters also want reform.
The electorate’s desires couldn’t be clearer. But politicians — who have little time to fact-check what they’re told — are fed the kind of misinformation Dr Hodge advances.
The false 'non-voluntary euthanasia slippery slope' argument
He quotes details from a medical journal article by Dr José Pereira, a Canadian Catholic physician. Like others who cite this article, Dr Hodge fails to mention that it was thoroughly debunked in a surgical deconstruction by expert scholars. They found Pereira’s claims variously unsupported by any evidence, unsupported by the sources he cited, or false, concluding that the article was “smoke and mirrors.”
Like other Catholics, Dr Hodge relies heavily on a thoroughly debunked journal article by Catholic Canadian doctor, José Pereira.A significant source of smoke, which Dr Hodge fans from this debunked article, is the claim regarding “900 Dutch deaths hastened without explicit request”: that is, non-voluntary euthanasia or NVE. Such figures are cited as ‘proof’ of the hypothetical slippery slope from legalised voluntary euthanasia to NVE.
Other opponents of assisted dying variously put the figure at 500 or 1,000. For the sake of argument, let’s say the 900 figure is equivalent to 1,000. Both the 500 and 1,000 figures, also repeatedly promoted by Catholic ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville and others, have been true. But here’s the thing.
What they don’t mention is that the 1,000 rate is from the 1990s when Dutch assisted dying was conducted under a general regulatory framework. In 2002 the Dutch euthanasia Act came into effect. Amongst the Act's many details was the establishment of a Commission which examines every reported case of assistance.
Since then, the Dutch NVE rate has dropped to 500, and even further. It has stayed low and is now similar to the NVE rate in the United Kingdom, the world’s gold standard for palliative care, and where assisted dying remains illegal.
There was a significant drop in the NVE rate in Belgium, too, after its euthanasia Act came into effect, also in 2002.
It is absolutely unconscionable that yet another Catholic commentator has trotted out the same old lie as though it's true. Dr Hodge is an academic and it is incumbent on him to check the facts before sounding off.By cherry-picking a single figure, opponents argue the opposite of the facts, implying or even directly claiming that NVE rates are caused by or have risen as a result of legalised assisted dying. I’ve comprehensively exposed this nonsense before, yet it comes up repeatedly.
It’s similar to other lines of Catholic argument against assisted dying, like the claim that Dutch elderly supposedly travel to Germany for healthcare because they fear being euthanised by their Dutch doctors — an outrageous falsehood. There’s also the faintly desperate claim that Dr Els Borst, the architect of the Dutch euthanasia Act, later regretted her reform — a fake claim she’s firmly corrected.
Consider too a Catholic bishop’s claim, without reservation and in formal evidence before an official Parliamentary inquiry, that Oregon’s general suicide rate was very low prior to its assisted dying Act but very high afterwards — contrary to the facts. Or a report cherry-picking just half a sentence from a journal paper to claim that a significant proportion of assisted-death patients in Oregon had symptoms of depression, when the other half of the verysame sentence clearly stated that none of them had.
As Professors Griffiths, Weyers and Adams wrote in 2008, “imprecision, exaggeration, suggestion and innuendo, misinterpretation and misrepresentation [and worse] took the place of careful analysis.” Sadly, the same still seems true today.
Major Catholic flip-flop on choosing death
Now let’s turn our attention to the core of Dr Hodge’s thesis. His plea for “the vulnerable” leads his argument and is heavily egged throughout the polemical pudding.
A comparison is moot: Australians have the right to refuse any unwanted medical treatment, even if it’s life-saving.
In my home state of Victoria, this right to refuse is enshrined in statute. The statute contains just three ‘safeguards’ for checking a refusal, and those only apply if the refusal is formally documented in writing but not if it’s only oral.
As I’ve explained in detail before, the consequence is that a person can refuse life-saving medical treatment with few if any checks and balances. In theory, just as Dr Hodge argues in regard to assisted dying, the person might feel pressured by greedy relatives, resource-poor doctors or others, to so refuse.
In this case, where is the Catholic call for protections? Where is the moral outrage on behalf of ‘vulnerable patients’? There is none. In fact, the Catholic Church’s call is quite the opposite. In a directive to all Catholic healthcare institutions in the USA, the Conference of Catholic Bishops make the Church’s position abundantly clear. They direct that there is no obligation for patients to use “disproportionate means of preserving life.”
The Catholic church's rhetoric against assisted dying is a major flip-flop when compared to its cosy attitude towards refusal of life-saving medical treatment: both might result in hypothetical pressure to choose death, yet only assisted dying has adequate safeguards.They define disproportionate means as “…those that in the patient’s judgement do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.”
So, under two identical hypothetical possibilities of inappropriate persuasion to choose death, Dr Hodge’s argument bristles against an assisted dying reform containing — as he acknowledges — no fewer than 68 safeguards, while his Church argues that patients may refuse life-saving medical treatment if the patient feels it’s “hopeless,” entails “excessive burden” or imposes “excessive expense” on others, with hardly any, or no statutory safeguards at all.
The incoherence, and repetition of misinformation, is indefensible. Civil debate on such an important matter deserves better.
Blog by Neil FrancisPosted on Sunday 6th August 2017 at 2:31am
The terminally ill are not choosing between life and death, but between two ways of dying, according to their own beliefs and conscience. Photo: Andrew Drummond/AAP
In Monday’s Herald Sun, Victorian Archbishops Philip Freier and Denis Hart, and Bishops Ezekiel, Suriel, Lester Briebbenow, Bosco Puthur and Peter Stasiuk published a half-page advertisement admonishing the Victorian government for its initiative to legalise assisted dying for the terminally ill, an ad similar to the one published by religious figures in 2008.
I have no quarrel with individuals of faith regarding their own private beliefs. However, the bishops’ attempt at public “leadership” through the advertisement is deserving of redress for its multiple fallacies.
The ‘abandonment’ fallacy
The bishops claimed that assisted dying “represents the abandonment of those who are in greatest need of our care and support”. On the contrary: to ignore the deeply-held beliefs and rigorously-tested wishes of people at the end of life is to abandon their values and critical faculties in favour of the bishops’ own religious dogma.
The ‘competition’ fallacy
The bishops demand there should be more funding for healthcare rather than assisted dying, fallaciously pitting one option against the other. The Victorian government is indeed increasing funding for palliative care. It’s also aiming to provide lawful assisted dying for when even the best palliative care can’t help – which Palliative Care Australia has acknowledged – giving lie to the faux competition.
The evidential fallacy
Contrary to the bishops’ false presumption that legalised assisted dying will decrease trust in “the treatment and quality of care” from doctors, scientific studies into attitude change show that more people trust doctors when assisted dying is legal. Patients can then talk openly about options, even if they decide against assisted death. The bishops have abandoned facts in favour of religious assumptions.
The equivalence fallacy
The bishops refer to assisted dying as “government endorsed suicide”. They fallaciously equate a reasoned, tested and accompanied decision for a peaceful assisted death in the face of a terminal illness, with the impulsive, violent, isolated and regrettable suicide of individuals (many of whom have mental health and substance abuse issues) who are failing to cope with problems that can be addressed.
However, while the latter are choosing between life and death, the terminally ill are choosing not between life and death, but between two different ways of dying, according to their own beliefs and conscience. Rigorous 2016 research from Australian National University shows that the vast majority (79%) of Victorians support assisted dying choice for the terminally ill (with just 8% opposed), clearly distinguishing it from general suicide.
Shame on the bishops for disrespectfully equating the two.
The inconsistency fallacy
They also argue that assisted dying ought to remain prohibited because within healthcare, “mistakes happen and the vulnerable are exploited,” and “that in spite of our best efforts, our justice system could never guarantee” no one would die by mistake or false evidence. However, as I’ve pointed out before, an identical hypothetical problem exists under the refusal of life-saving medical treatment, a statutory right that Victorians have enjoyed for nearly 30 years. The statute has only three “safeguard” requirements, yet even those only apply if the refusal is formally documented, but not if it’s verbal.
Further, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops directs that patients may refuse treatment if it imposes “excessive expense on the family or community,” yet makes no mention of the hypothetical “vulnerability” of the patient to be persuaded so, nor directs any requirements to assess the veracity of the refusal.
In stark contrast, the Victorian proposal for assisted dying legislation contains more than 60 safeguards and oversights.
The bishops are at risk of ridicule for such a gargantuan flip-flop: supporting the refusal of life-saving treatment with little or no oversight, while vocally opposing assisted dying legislation that mandates an armada of protections.
The not-so-hidden agenda
The bishops’ methods are rather unsubtle – hoping that these arguments, erroneous but carefully crafted to avoid any religious connotations, will be accepted as non-religious. Yet religion is writ large across their plea: as signatories to the letter they are all clerics employed directly and centrally in the promotion of their religions.
The authority fallacy
They might also rely on their religious status to convey gravity and authority to their pleas. Yet as people paid to do a job, like anyone else, their titles grant them no special privileges in lecturing Victorians about how they should die in the face of a terminal illness.
According to the 2016 census, just 23% of Victorians identified as Catholic, 9% as Anglican, 0.5% as Lutheran, and the other bishops’ signatory denominations so small as to not appear separately in the government’s statistics. Combined, the bishops’ faiths represent around 33% of the Victorian population, while 32% of Victorians identify with no faith at all. Surely the bishops are not arguing that they’re speaking for these other Victorians, too?
But the bishops don’t represent the views of their own flocks, either. According to the 2016 ANU study, 89% of non-religious Victorians support assisted dying law reform, as do 78% of Victorian Catholics and Anglicans. Indeed, opposition to assisted dying exists mostly among those who attend religious services once a week or more often – that is, those who are frequently exposed institutional religious messages of opposition – yet who comprise just 12% of Australians and 11% of Victorians.
Minding their own flocks
Australians are abandoning religion in droves. For example, when Freier ascended to the top job of Anglican Primate of Australia in 2006, some 19% of Australians identified as Anglican (2006 census). A decade later under his leadership, the 2016 census showed a drop of about a third to just 13%, and in Victoria, his home territory, to just 9%.
Hart’s Catholic church has experienced a drop in affiliation too, and it’s likely to continue and accelerate as Australians react with shock and disgust to the extent of child sexual abuse that the royal commission has exposed from under his organisation’s “pastoral umbrella”.
In conclusion, rather than bishops lecturing the government and Victorians with fallacious and faintly desperate arguments about the choices they shouldn’t have at the end of life, attending to their own flocks may be more useful Christian leadership.
May their God go with them in that endeavour.
This article was originally published in The Guardian.