The Logical Fallacies of “Choice”
in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
It is bewildering when the supporters of assisted suicide and euthanasia claim that society must change long-held mores because of what they now call “compassion.” This, they say, is rooted in “autonomy” and an overriding right to personal “choice.” These ideas are often held with delusional intensity — even the Supreme Court of Canada is imbued with fervour for this new doctrine and manipulated the definition of the Right to Life to mean there is a Right to Death.
Most of us learn one of the most important lessons in life as small children — choice is limited. It is very harmful to receive everything we wish for. This lesson is an essential part of growing into a mature, self-regulating adult.
Compassion — in the supporter’s language — is a tacky euphemism for death by suicide, or euthanasia. (AS/VE: Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia.) This twisted meaning of compassion has been challenged in many Catholic Arena articles. Autonomy was discussed in my recent article — Toxic Autonomy.
This article discusses Choice and the logical fallacies used by AS/VE supporters to back their position. A Logical Fallacy is a statement which at first sounds logical, but then fails under rational scrutiny. (A Cognitive Bias is the continuing error in thinking which affects decisions and judgment.)
Social media
Tweets from AS supporters commonly follow a similar format. Frequently the Tweeter is anonymous. (Like SNock >>> )
No name; no Bio picture; no location; no identifying information.
The usual post has much the same theme as SNock’s Tweet <<< to the left. It touches on some awful death usually caused by a terminal illness. Frequently, they note a failure of ‘palliative care’ or other treatment and go on to assert the entitlement to AS/VE because of different mixtures of autonomy and choice. Anybody who opposes the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is vilified as being cruel, callous and inhumane. Then wash, rinse & repeat ad-nauseam — till you shame the opposition into silence.
Logical Fallacies & Cognitive Bias
Logical fallacies are quite numerous — humans like to deceive ourselves! Below I reference some of the most common fallacies used by AS/VE supporters. (With thanks to William R. Klemm Ph.D. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201410/analytical-thinking-logic-errors-101 and Jerry Silfwer, https://doctorspin.org/science/psychology/logical-fallacies/ for information.)
Emotional Reasoning: AS/VE supporters rarely make a clear rational argument, rather they focus on how they feel. They often reference some tragic case (often in minimal & unverifiable detail) and then focus on their emotional response. Much of the support for AS/VE arises from ‘emotional reasoning’ rather than cool rationalization.
“All or Nothing” Thinking: AS/VE supporters use absolutist terms (e.g. the demands for an “absolutely pain free death”) lacking the nuance which is needed in complex situations.
Appeals to Consensus: (The “Bandwagon Fallacy.”) “Everyone believes it, so it must be true.”
Forceful Argument implying Logical Validity: “Those who shout loudest and longest are right!” The adult version of a tantrum!
Magnification & Minimisation: Pro-AS/VE advocates often magnify the pain and suffering of their cases and minimize the benefit of proper palliative care. In particular they minimise the risks to society when killing its own citizens.
The Sunk Cost Fallacy: Sometimes we stick to a project because we have invested time, money, and other resources. Abandoning the project means admitting irreversible failure. Some support a friend or family member through AS/VE and later, cannot admit that it was wrong. (A variant of “the Stockholm Syndrome.”)
“No True Scotsman”: Disqualification due to “a lack of purity.” This is commonly based on an irrelevant characteristic or ideal. (Watch how AS/VE supporters disqualify opposition if there is have even a hint of religion. My articles are often quite secular but are summarily dismissed because they are published in “CATHOLIC” Arena!)
Argument Selectivity: (“Cherry Picking”) focusing on the ideas which are easier to present or to attack. This is linked to “False Dichotomy” when several possibilities are reduced down to only two choices.
Biased Labelling: Such as labelling information as “Science-based” when there has been no scientific research.
Clouding the Issue: (Obfuscation) throwing out multiple complex ideas and irrelevant data to confuse with smoke and mirrors. One Tweeter — ‘Scottish Old Fart’, see below — keeps asking if I am a vegan, saying that if I eat meat I can have no say on AS/VE! (p.s. Oidhche Bhlas Burns, Old Fart! I had the vegan haggis last night at Robbie Burns night!)
Cognitive Shortcuts Bias: (Einstellung) Which is sticking with a favourite viewpoint or argument without using more effective viewpoint or arguments.
Confirmation Bias: Noting only the facts which support the argument and ignoring everything which is contradictory.
Overgeneralization: Self explanatory.
Unsupported Assertion: An assertion lacking evidence.
Appeal To Ignorance: If you cannot disprove their statements, you “prove” their position is correct.
Optimism/Pessimism Bias: We find it easier to believe that negative things can happen to others than to ourselves. But some people have a tendency to be biased in the opposite way; they overestimate the likelihood of negative events. “We’re so blessed that those terrible things couldn’t ever happen to us.” / “What happened to them will also happen to us — only worse.”
Final Consequences: The validity of an action being based on the end outcome (which is the expected consequence.)
Appeal to Authority: Quoting the opinion of somebody in authority to support a contention without presenting any evidence.
Tu Quoque (Who are you to talk?) If someone makes a statement outside of their expertise, it does not make the statement untrue.
Strawman Argument: A gross misrepresentation of the intended meaning of a position.
Red Herring: Offering misleading or distracting information which is irrelevant to the main point.
Personal Incredulity: Just because you find something hard to believe or imagine, that in itself doesn’t make it untrue.
Loaded Question/Statement: To ask a question / make a statement with an assumption already built into the question. (Note SNock’s statement above: “I respect your right to choose, please do the same for me.”)
Chesterton’s Fence: If we don’t understand or see the reason for something, we might be inclined to do away with it. (in this case social norms.)
The Fundamental Attribution Error: When someone else makes a mistake, we tend to attribute this mistake to their character or their behaviour, but when we ourselves makes mistakes, we tend to attribute such mistakes to contextual circumstances.
The Backfire Effect: When challenged, we cling even firmer to our beliefs — instead of questioning ourselves. “People really seem to hate our ideology, but this only proves that we’re right about everything.” (I may be guilty of this one!)
There are many more! Some additional self-explanatory fallacies are: Begging the Question; Jumping to Conclusions; Circular reasoning; Correlation taken as Causation: False Analogy: Missing the Point; Negativity Bias/ Declinism (Pessimism: the glass is half empty)
The fear of death in Western countries is now being actively fostered by agencies such as Dignity in Dying (UK); Dignity in Dying Scotland; Dying in Dignity Canada: Death with Dignity (US); My Death, My Decision, to further their sordid agenda.
It is revolting how these agencies prey on people’s vulnerability and loneliness after 3 years of stress and social isolation during COVID.
The despair is pervasive and palpable — but “there may yet be Hope!”
Kevin Hay
(You can follow Kevin on Twitter @kevinhay77)
