| Trustworthy Sources | |
If you don't personally witness something, you must take someone's word for it. But how do you know they're not lying, or unintentionally misleading you? If the information is widely accepted (like some historical and scientific facts), you can usually trust its accuracy. Here are some examples of the kinds of things that are not disputed:
"In almost every state indeed, in almost every Western democracy it is a crime to assist a suicide. The states' assisted-suicide bans are not innovations. Rather, they are long-standing expressions of the states' commitment to the protection and preservation of all human life. Indeed, opposition to and condemnation of suicide and, therefore, of assisting suicide are consistent and enduring themes of our philosophical, legal, and cultural heritages...
The states are currently engaged in serious, thoughtful examinations of physician-assisted suicide and other similar issues. For example, New York State's Task Force on Life and the Law, an ongoing, blue-ribbon commission composed of doctors, ethicists, lawyers, religious leaders and interested laymen was convened in 1984 and commissioned with "a broad mandate to recommend public policy on issues raised by medical advances."
Over the past decade, the task force has recommended laws relating to end-of-life decisions, surrogate pregnancy, and organ donation. After studying physician-assisted suicide, however, the task force unanimously concluded that "(l)egalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would pose profound risks to many individuals who are ill and vulnerable. ...(T)he potential dangers of this dramatic change in public policy would outweight any benefit that might be achieved."...
The due process clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. The clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Right, the "liberty" specially protected by the due process clause includes the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of ones' children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity and to abortion. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the due process clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment.
But we "ha(ve) always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended"....
"The state's interest here goes beyond protecting the vulnerable from coercion; it extends to protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes and "societal indifference." The state's assisted-suicide ban reflects and reinforces its policy that the lives of terminally ill, disabled and elderly people must be no less valued than the lives of the young and healthy and that a seriously disabled person's suicidal impulses should be interpreted and treated the same way as anyone else's.
Finally, the state may fear that permitting assisted suicide will start it down the path to voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia. The court of appeals struck down Washington's assisted-suicide ban only "as applied to competent, terminally ill adults who wish to hasten their deaths by obtaining medication prescribed by their doctors."
Washington insists, however, that the impact of the court's decision will not and cannot be so limited. If suicide is protected as a matter of constitutional right, it is argued, "every man and woman in the United States must enjoy it." The court of appeals' decision, and its expansive reasoning, provide ample support for the state's concerns. ...
Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debte about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society."
Most of us hear about Supreme Court decisions on the radio or televison or we read about them in the newspaper. Few of us bother to read the actual decision. As a result, we take the word of someone else--a reporter, a writer, a columnist, or even a friend. And whenever we do this, we are trusting that source to give us the information. And often, we trust them to give us an interpretation of that information. And so it is in the case of your research. Only reputable sources can be trusted.
Some of you may realize that one way a source can mislead you is to give you excerpts (samples) from something, just the way I have done. And you're right to be suspicious because this means something was left out. Even though I cut out those parts of the decision which I thought were not pertinent, I can't guarantee that I wasn't unconsciously influenced by my own biases, nor can anyone you let do this for you. No one is completely objective; the goal of an honest researcher or reporter is to be free of all bias, but we're only human. The best you can hope for is that your sources are trying their best to avoid being influenced by their own feelings and opinions.
Of course, there's always someone who will dispute anything. And yes, once in a very great while, there somes along someone with whom everyone disagrees and he or she tursn out to be right. But those rare cases do not provide enough evidence and are not a just cause in themselves to accept the word of aqnyone who disputes commonly accepted information.
Information Disputed by a Minority
There's a second kind of information which IS disputed. One way to look at it is to say that in some instances there are facts which are accepted as such by the majority, but still in dispute by a significant minority to warrant further investigation. (Notice the wording there; I did not say that because a minority disagrees the information is false; I simply noted that there are enough people who dispute these things to warrant FURTHER investigation. Or as the popular cliche goes, you could say that "the jury is still out." For example, while the majority of people accept that the chemicals known as CFC's are causing the growth of a "hole" in the earth's ozone layer , there are still some who dispute it.
Checking Up on your Sources
The point here is NOT that the majority rules. Something is never true just because a majority of people accept it as true. There must be compelling evidence to support it. But what do you do if you don't have access to the evidence or even if you simply lack the time to investigate an issue? You accept someone else's word for it. And then the question bnecomes a matter of trust. Can you trusdt the sourcer? Though you can never be 100% sure, you can do some things to increase the likelihood that your sources for information can be trusted.
Find out whether or not they've lied or misrepesented things in the past. Sources that have been proven trustworthy are most likely to continue being trustworthy;
Whenever possible, find a second or third source for the information and corroborate it. If two, three, or four sources say the same thing, the odds are high that the information is correct. (Legitimate newspapers require their reporters to cooriborate all sources with at least one more source.)
Find out about the person or the publication's qualifications, certifications, or accreditations. Most reputable sources are qualified by a certifying agency. This is especially true in most technical areas. Engineers and scientists must pass exams and be licensed or certified by the state or by their professional organizations. But don't confuse these certifications with disclaimers or information that's required by law. For example, these are legitimate qualifiers:
"Crest toothpaste carries the seal of approval of the American Dental Association."
"Jim Snowball's forecast is certified by the American Meteorological Association."
But these are not:
"Marvin Schyster is not certified in Family Law by the American Bar Association."
"This has been a paid political announcement."A Reading Exercise
I'd like you to send me an e-mail after you've read this lecture. Before you go any further, grab a piece of paper and write a brief explanation of everything you know or have heard and believe to be true about the Supreme Court's recent decision on assisted-suicide. Then read the following excerpts from the Supreme Court Decision in Washington v. Glucksberg and send me an e-mail with two parts. Tell me what you wrote BEFORE you read the excerpts and then tell me what you learned AFTER you read the excerpts and how that differs from what you wrote before.
Excerpts From The Supreme Court Decision In
Washington v. Glucksberg
By Chief Justice Rehnquist
Can Anyone be Completely Objective?
Cases are heard by the Supreme Court when questions of constitutionality arise which are not settled by lower courts and/or which are appealed to the higher courts. Ultimately the Supreme Court is asked to make a ruling and that ruling is final. So it was with the issue of assisted suicide.