I- 1000 Propganda Clearly Untrue
Pro assisted suicide advocates are expert spin artists who specialize in ignoring the forest for the trees. But this bit of cow manure is so obviously false that if the media weren't generally totally in the tank, the campaign would become a laughing stock. From "The Oregon Experience" on the Yes on 1-000 Web site:
The poor, disabled or minority populations were not adversely impacted in any manner because all of the patients who chose the option had health care coverage.Oh really? Better tell that to Oregon lung cancer patient Barbara Wagner, who was told by Oregon Medicaid that it would not pay for chemotherapy to extend her life, but would pay for her assisted suicide. The same thing happened to Randy Stroup when he wanted chemo for his recurrent prostate cancer.
If refusing to pay for treatment but paying for killing isn't an "adverse impact," then what is?
Here's another whopper:
Approximately 88% or more over the years were in hospice, and all of them were at the very end of their dying process.First, the annual statistics published by the State of Oregon can't tell us that. Moreover, we know for a fact that the assertion is flat out false. As described in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association, Michael Freeland received a lethal prescription nearly 2 years before he died a natural death--meaning that he clearly was not at the last stages of his disease.
And here's another abuse in that case: When Freeland became psychotic, his psychiatrist left the lethal prescription "safely at home" even as he recommended hospitalization and then court oversight over the ill man's affairs.
Assisted suicide in Oregon is rife with abuse. With the exceptions of the "no funds for care but will pay for killing" stories, the media just won't cover it.


6 Comments:
Support the Washington State Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.
www.noassistedsuicide.com
Listen to everything Alex says.
WS: "Pro assisted suicide advocates are expert spin artists who specialize in ignoring the forest for the trees. But this bit of cow manure is so obviously false that if the media weren't generally totally in the tank, the campaign would become a laughing stock."
This kind of rhetoric seems beneath a person of your intelligence. Labelling everyone who supports DWD legislation as "spin artists" who "ignore facts" (rather than, perhaps, interpreting them differently than you?) is counter-productive and in poor form. I know several medical professionals in Oregon who support DWD and will in the same breath tell you about its flaws and potential dangers. In fact, I'm surprised that you have not met some of them yourself.
Ans as for the media that is so "in the tank" for leftist biowthics, isn't this the same media that covered the Schiavo case for months on end as if the nation were somehow evenly divided on the issue and the courts were treading in unknown waters? (Neither of which were the case.) And I guess this is also the same media that has so intentionally ignored the anti-PAS side so routinely that several other states have now passed PAS legislation. Oops! Make that NO other states wih PAS despite years of trying. How exactly has your side been receiving its information - by passenger pigeon? Telegraph? Selectively playing the media card whenever it suits your purposes is about as sincere and accurate as calling people activist judges who "legislate from the bench" only when they make rulings that you don't agree with, not when they exceed their judicial authority regardless of their verdict.
I've been very candid in this forum about the flawed safeguards and in my concern that PAS would ever be offered in the place of other conventional forms of medical treatment, including hospice. I've also stated that if such examples begin appearing more frequently and are condoned, then I will no longer support the Act, plain and simple. This makes me a "spin doctor?"
Not to be overly argumentative here (I like it better when we agree), but your side has still not conceded nor explained the glaring fact that despite PAS's flaws, the number of Oregonians choosing this option has remained remarkably consistent and remarkably low for an entire decade. After 10 years, the "just wait and see" argument is not very persuassive.
Finally, let me state that I have nothing against folks like Mr. Schadenberg as long as they are telling the truth, not demonizing the majority of well-intentioned & thoughtful folks on the other side, and most importantly, ARE committed to improving conventional end-of-life care for all citizens. On this last point, both sides can agree.
O: It seems clear to me that this post is about the public political advocates, not you or people who may disagree with me. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't seen you qualify your remarks on the topic but am admittedly new to this forum and have not yet read the lion's share of your PAS remarks. Just think rhetoric like that only discourges meaningful dialogue and indirectly insults the collective intelligence of the majority of Oregonians who supported the law by referendum twice. They come off as easily fooled suckers. Perhaps not the best way to go about changing hearts and minds?
I recognize and respect your passion on this particular topic and you certainly don't need me or anyone else telling you how to present your views. My remarks are perhaps selfish in this regard. Just noting that you are a nationally recognized spokesman for the conservative bioethics movement and trust me, many on the 'left' do read your stuff. Just hate seeing some of my peers dismissing the baby because of the bathwater. Like I said, selfish.
My earlier posts in your forum are clear and convincing evidence that I am clearly guilty of harsh & inflammatory language when I get fired up on a topic :(
O: A-OK.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home