As a journalist, I tend to be impatient with fussy terminological precision, a character flaw which has occasionally raised the hackles of readers with more exacting standards. However, terminology is important, especially in public debates over bioethical issues. That’s why I was so disappointed to read this admission by Gerald Dworkin, an academic who has been lobbying with Compassion & Choices for assisted suicide in California.
“I should note that the use of the term ‘Physician-assisted suicide’ is now politically incorrect, for tactical reasons. I understand that the popular prejudice against suicide makes it more difficult to rally support for the bills I favor. And even some potential users of such measures object to their death-certificate reading ‘suicide’. But to list the cause of death, as many such bills do, as the underlying disease process seems to me simply a lie. What caused the person diagnosed with terminal cancer to die now, rather than somewhat later, is the secobarbital the patient took. But learning to keep silent about such terminological matters was only one of many lessons I had to learn.”
What a shame it is to win a debate by fudging the issues. As Samuel Johnson said, “It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.”
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.