| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
22 March 2005 - 2:40 pm
This article in the P-D detailing how local representatives voted on the recent Terri Schiavo matter is eye-opening, to say the least. For example,
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, said the measure was "necessary to define a gray area in law that has been exposed by the case of Terri Schiavo," and that she hopes it will establish a precedent for future cases.Since Ms. Emerson referred to a "gray area in the law" I assume she's hoping that this bill establishes a legal precedent. If so, she either didn't read the bill she voted for or doesn't understand that because this bill explicitly named only Terri Schiavo, it has limited, if any, utility in other cases. And if she meant that the Congressional action to intervene on behalf of only one of the 35,000 Americans currently in a persistent vegetative state, she needs to go back to civics class and learn about the separation of powers.
I also enjoyed reading Todd Akin's justification for voting for this measure.
"There is a huge national sense that something isn't right here," said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country. "When you say, 'This person really doesn't need to be alive,' how about the next and the next and the next? ... That first step is a very dangerous one to make."His arguments boil down to 1) there is a national consensus that Terri Schiavo shouldn't have her feeding tube removed and 2) there should not be a right to die if you can only survive on life support because it is a slippery slope. Both these arguments are ridiculous. They are a combination of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies.
On Mr. Akin's first point, polls suggest that there are three times as many Americans who support the removal of the feeding tube than there are Americans who think it should be left in place. And in case you're worried about media bias, both ABC and Fox News are giving similar results. Further, seven out of ten Americans (more than the amount who supported removal of the feeding tube!) thought Congress acted inappropriately when it intervened in this case.
As to Mr. Akin's second argument ("how about the next and the next and the next"), slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies because they assume that the first action somehow enables the second and that there is no chance for review once the first decision has been made. Further is Mr. Akin arguing that things like living wills should be banned?
In short, lawmakers are jumping through hoops trying to justify what they thought was "a great political issue" in light of the fact that their actions are not at all popular with their constituents.
Slate has been doing a bang-up job covering the Terri Schiavo issue. Dahlia Lithwick has been on this since the fall of 2003 and yesterday both she and William Saletan had great articles on this issue. I recommend them both.
Posted by on 22 March 2005 at 2:39 PM
Comments