Needless to Say
A few (mostly needless) words from Tim Falconer
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
11/14/09
Shocker: Expert accuses journalist of oversimplification
Filed under: That Good Night
Posted by: Tim @ 5:36 pm

Anita Ho, a bioethics professor at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Applied Ethics, reviewed That Good Night in the October 2009 issue of the Literary Review of Canada. It’s a thoughtful essay and not really a bad review at all — in fact, it may even make some LRC subscribers want to read the book — though apparently her take on dying with dignity isn’t the same as mine.

It’s not online, so here’s a taste:

Beginning with recollections of his own father’s death and the role of ethicists in an increasingly complicated medical world, in That Good Night: Ethicists, Euthanasia and End-of-Life Care journalist Tim Falconer explores how modern high-tech medicine has ironically made dying worse, rather than better. Using stories of patients who agonize over their impending loss of control and discussions with ethicists who work with families fighting over end of life, Falconer examines how the juxtaposition of limited resources and heroic medical culture compounds the challenging question of who has the right to decide how and when one should die. Appealing to our common desire to “go comfortably and painlessly and with as much of our dignity intact as possible,” Falconer urges ethicists and citizens to engage in serious debate of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As a bioethicist whose work in clinical ethics is also dominated by end-of-life issues, I particularly welcome how That Good Night includes multiple voices and perspectives – it weaves stories of patients, families, physicians, and ethicists together in exploring how our health-care system, despite its promises to be patient-centred and respectful of diverse perspectives, often fails to honour the wishes of or provide comfort for those who are facing an impending death. Various anecdotes illustrate how the lack of appropriate support has led to people dying alone, in pain or hooked up to machines. Nonetheless, as powerful as the stories are in conveying patients’ and families’ agony, some of the discussions Falconer presents may also inadvertently oversimplify the meaning of a good death.


I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at her accusation that I oversimplified anything. After all, the job of a journalist is to simplify subjects for readers who aren’t experts, but academics love to toss off this cheap line whenever they disagree with what a journalist has written. (Conversely, a lot of reporters wonder if experts intentionally overcomplicate things just to seem more intelligent and important.)

Regardless, before the piece even hit newsstands, the editors at the Literary Review of Canada asked me to write a response. Now, I’ve always understood that the last thing an author should do is respond to a bad review — the standard advice is: “Sure, you can write a letter, but you should never, ever send it” — and, as I say, this wasn’t even a bad review. But, assured that author’s rebuttals are a regular feature in the LRC, I wrote a response that’s in the November 2009 issue and is online (scroll down to the seventh letter). It ends this way: “Well, I’m sure she sees a lot more death than I ever will (not that I’m complaining) and she would hardly be the first expert to accuse a journalist of oversimplification, but my book never judges how others decide to die, arguing instead that we all have the right to choose our own ‘good death.’ If Ho can find dignity and meaning in going out on a flotilla of medical technology, I respect her choice. But she shouldn’t expect everyone else to make the same one. Nowadays, even assisted suicide seems more natural than years spent lingering on life support, so I know how I want to die—as does my wife, just in case.”

Leave a Reply