Fallacy - Appeal To Authority . Nizkor
Now let us examine the De Veber Institute to see if they are actually authorities with respect to abortion and women's rights and freedoms - or whether the only abilities these people demonstrate is the ability to get their books published in a particular method for a specific targeted audience.

These are the players

• L.L. Barrie de Veber - Speciality - pediatric palliative care.
• Ian Gentles, - Professor of history. Early modern British; historical demography.
• Keith Cassidy - His special expertise is his "research interest" in "The abortion controversy in America since 1960" and a cursory glimpse at the contents of his CV indicates it's the 'US America' he's talking about and not the 'Canadian America'.
• Martha Crean - Teaches English to immigrants.
• Patricia Dolente - Matijczyk She's a fundraiser and part time supply teacher.
• Patricia Egan - A lawyer. She isn't found listed in the search of the "Law Society of Upper Canada.
• Bob Fowler - An insurance agent and financial planner.
• Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy - Clinical psychotherapist - on the board Society of Catholic Social Scientists her writing appears to cross several disciplines - perhaps 'a little knowledge'.
• Bambi Rutledge, She has "a background in literatuse, education, and communications" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Now let's see how they meet the Nizkor test of being authorities.

1 - The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

There is one medically credentialed member of the group and his expertise is in palliative pediatric medicine. There is one sociologists/psychologist trained member. A historian has looked at US abortion from the historical perspective from 1960 apparently. There is no ethicist or philosopher in the group. They discuss "breast cancer" but De Veber is a retired pediatric oncologist (his 'speciality' is euthanasia prevention apparently).

2 - The claim being made by the person is within hir area(s) of expertise.

Refer to 1. No the publishers-editors do not meet this test when talking about the medical, or ethics area of women's lives. The book they put out by Ring-Cassidy is a sort of "meta-analysis" and those familiar with the abortion issue know how such a meta-analysis can be misused. As a matter of fact she actually quotes the Brind results showing the spurious link to breast cancer.

3 - There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

This would depend on the subject in question but on the matter of the current publication list since there is an emphasis on abortion we can unequivocally say the experts don't agree.

4- The person in question is not significantly biased.

A little research into the participants exposes the Roman Catholic influence written big in this institution. On the issue I think it can be agreed that institution and it's members bring bias to the table.

5 - The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

That would depend on what discipline is being discussed. Abortion is an area of expertise in herstory, or medicine, and even ethics. This does not mean, of course, that they are speaking to the area of their expertise when they publish. This is a possible as far as Nizkor goes.

6 - The authority in question must be identified.

They actually meet one of the qualifications - they know their names!!

So what we have is an RC influenced group with little combined expertise in the abortion ethics subject, publishing for the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) and calling themselves Bio Ethicists.

As they say in their country "Plus ca change, Plus C'est La Même Chose" or The more they change the more they remain the same.

HOME
If you came here from an offsite link just click BACK.