4 ms·

Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. >This was a commentary p

by mthoms 3y ago

Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. >This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources. Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one. More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
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.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  What’s the basis of this strong claim? 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.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > 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.
    - robotresearcher 3y ago
      Those sound like views you have arrived at by your own consideration, and not things that would cause you to discuss the topic dogmatically.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        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.
- mthoms 3y ago
  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.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > 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.
    - mthoms 3y ago
      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.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        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.
        mthoms 3y ago
coldtea 3y ago
>Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints! > More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Here is the study: https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD... The relevant question: "At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in dying because of the following reasons?" (a) Poverty Agreeing 27% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 16%) (b) Homelessness Agreeing 28% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 17%) >found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%? (Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).
- mthoms 3y ago
  >Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints! That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent. I hope you can see why that is important context to know. >Dishomest "interpretation", eh? As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder. Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.

by mthoms 3y ago

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

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.

robotresearcher 3y ago
What’s the basis of this strong claim? 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.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > 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.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    Those sound like views you have arrived at by your own consideration, and not things that would cause you to discuss the topic dogmatically.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      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.
mthoms 3y ago
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.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > 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.
  - mthoms 3y ago
    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.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      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.
      - mthoms 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

>Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization. Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints! > More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Here is the study: https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD... The relevant question: "At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in dying because of the following reasons?" (a) Poverty Agreeing 27% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 16%) (b) Homelessness Agreeing 28% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 17%) >found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest. Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%? (Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).

mthoms 3y ago
>Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints! That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent. I hope you can see why that is important context to know. >Dishomest "interpretation", eh? As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder. Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.