AMA continues to oppose your rights

Dr Gannon demonstrated ignorance of basic facts with this remark. In Oregon, which has the world's oldest specific assisted dying framework (in effect since 1997), there have been no changes in who may qualify. He also ignores peer-reviewed research showing no 'slippery slope' for the supposed 'vulnerable'. Canadian Professor Harvey Chochinov, Chair of his government's expert panel which investigated legislative options for assisted dying, confirmed the lack of this 'slippery slope' in a keynote address at Swinburne University last week.

11 Nov 2016: Doctors maintain this Trust with everyday care for patients, by upholding #DeclarationOfGeneva @medwma @juliamedew @Rania_Spooner #ethics

He also claimed that assisted dying would erode patient trust in doctors, at odds with the fact that people's trust in doctors is high amongst OECD countries with assisted dying laws. Indeed, trust in doctors amongst Dutch, Belgian and Swiss citizens is significantly higher than Australians' trust in our own doctors.

During the review period, Dr Gannon also repeatedly promoted the (medical) Declaration of Geneva (e.g. see previous tweet), which states that doctors must not participate in assisted dying. If the Declaration's canonical opposition was indeed the authoritative stance on assisted dying, then why would it be relevant for the AMA to conduct a review process of its policy?

Declining to correct misinformation

In September, the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA: a wholly-owned subsidiary of the AMA), published a news report containing significant misinformation. It painted a negative and hostile picture about assisted dying in Belgium. I published a critique of why the opinion was wrong, and commented on the online MJA article with a link to my correction. The MJA promptly deleted my comment.

AMA member Dr Rosemary Jones then put up the same objection, which they couldn't delete because it was from a member. The MJA then responded, but only to dig in its heels to defend the misinformation and reveal even more serious flaws in its information and logic.

I wrote a further research-backed analysis of why its defensive arguments were even more wrong than the original and posted a note and link on the original MJA article page (Figure 1). Once again, my post has been deleted.

Figure 1: The second post on MJA insight which was subsequently deleted.

The result of this is that erroneous information about Belgium remains published on the MJA site as though it is correct, while failing to mention or acknowledge that it has been soundly refuted.

It's disappointing that the AMA and its President continue to make such uninformed remarks given that Dr Gannon claims to be a stickler for scientific evidence:

18 Aug 2016:Being a doctor is a huge privilege. Also carries responsibility to provide accurate scientific info, act ethically.