SHS on the Air About "Euphemisms" in Public Advocacy
A radio interview I gave back in 2004 about euphemisms, confusion, and animal rights on the splendid, but now lamentably defunct radio program Issues Etc., was just posted on-line over at Wittenberg Media blog.
I get a bit excited about some scientists not knowing what they are talking about when it comes to ethical issues and cloning. I had forgotten about this but I wrote about it in the Weekly Standard back in early 2004. From that column: ONE OF THE MORE DISTURBING hallmarks of the cloning debate has been the inaccurate and unscientific language used by cloning proponents to describe human cloning for biomedical research. There is a reason for this disingenuous approach to cloning advocacy. When cloning is accurately described as creating a new human embryo, the public overwhelmingly opposes it--whether the cloning is undertaken for research purposes or to create children. But when obfuscating terminology is employed to make it appear that only "cells" are created in a "therapeutic cloning" procedure, public support tends to grow.
In that regard, I think it--and the Standard piece--remain timely. It you are interested, check it out.
As it turns out, this also holds true for scientists. A new survey of biotechnology researchers has just been released demonstrating both the political effectiveness of the pro-cloning wordplay and an appalling ignorance among the scientific community about what human cloning actually entails.
Labels: Wesley J. Smith. Radio Interview
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:55 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
From a reader: Thankyou for your ongoing support of life.I recently experienced a similar situation with one of my patients wherein the "palliative pain experts" clearly hoped to put the child "out of his misery" by increasing his sedation and narcotics to astronomical doses(96 mg valium Q 6hr IV),inducing coma and hypotension.Thankfully, his mother and I stopped the process in the nick of time. He is doing fairly well at this time although he has a chronic and incurable disease. What do you consider a "terminal illness" in a child, and when is limited care appropriate?"
I think a terminal illness can be loosely defined as an illness that even with known treatments, is likely to lead to death.
But I think that category should not be confused with a situaion in which the patient is actively dying.
So GOOD that you saved a life. There is a Jewish wisdom that says when you've saved one life you have saved the world.
Sounds like people need to have one or more ACTIVE WATCHING advocates when they enter the hospital.
The "life unworthy of life" crowd may sneer
--- (since logic and history don't matter to them)
...but OLD NAZIS are laughing - as some take up their euphemisms for "offing" unwanted humans.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home