This particular issue is difficult to discuss from a scientific perspective, because basically the only non-opinion (i.e. ideological) questions that can be asked are: whether making assisted suicide legal increases or decreases total suicides, and what are the economic impacts of assisted suicide legalization. Everything else about assisted suicide is ideological or ideological driven (at minimum, the balance between antipathies of death compared to pain).
Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
I agree that bias is unavoidable. But what we're talking about here is an organization who's entire purpose for existing is to spread conservative views. Furthermore, they blatantly misrepresented the very question asked in the poll. The poll is not about "euthanasia" or "murder", yet the piece implies otherwise.
Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.
Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.
The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.
Just take the "L" :-). You're not going to convince me that it was a worthwhile source, or that the motivations of a speaker don't deserve consideration. Thats plainly absurd. Especially when there's money AND (religious) ideology involved. Sorry.
It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.
Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
I was thinking of this as a discussion, not something people can win or lose. You having an opposite opinion isn't a loss to me, because we had a good discussion about it.
I enjoyed the discussion. If you gave some semblance of acknowledgment that the opinion piece wasn't so great, and those same sentiments could be expressed in a more constructive manner we could have moved on. No worries, though. Cheers.
Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.
For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
> For people without that view, why would they be biased?
- Fear of pain
- Fear of old age, or aging in general
- Fear of debility
- Fear of loss of autonomy
- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions
Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).
I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.
Bias does not necessitate dogmatism. I've read at least one non-dogmatic Catholic priest on suicide.
There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.
Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.
Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.