blog.bioethics.net

Wow, nice try, but you've got the wrong guy. The National News tonight said it was William CHESHIRE who opined that she wasn't in a PVS. Dr. Cheshire is an MD at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, I'm sure they checked his credentials before hiring him.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/neurology-jax/11736755.html
You have stooped to a new low with this post. Really now, what will the public who are surely reading this web think of bioethicsts?

- by Daughter of St. John on Mar 24, 2005 at 2:47 AM | link

I'm sorry, my bad, there are two Williams on the case apparently, but my chastisement still stands.

- by Daughter of St. John on Mar 24, 2005 at 2:48 AM | link

As the 'other' William was mentioned, the NY Times has a few things to say about him.
Whoa, THAT's one hell of an unbiased expert.... not.

- by Dan H on Mar 24, 2005 at 3:30 PM | link

These are ad hominem attacks. Arthur Caplan's comments in public are the reason I looked up this site this week. Although I have been on the email list a while, I haven't participated until Caplan's public assertions about the religious motives of the different sides.
Arthur Caplan repeated his display of poor ethics this morning on television, saying that Dr. William Cheshire could not serve as an advocate because of his religion and he is prolife, without disclosing his own bias toward the opposite position. Caplan stated that Governor Bush was looking for favorable physicians.
Dr. Cheshire addressed his background in his affidavit, and discussed why that background did not influence his findings. I doubt that Dr. Caplan could do the same.

- by Beverly Nuckols, MD on Mar 24, 2005 at 3:55 PM | link

If the issue is evaluating the reliability of expert testinomy, ad hominem arguments are not only justified, they are necessary. In fact, all arguments about the credibility of expert testimony are directed at the person in one way or another.
Those of us who are not neurologists and have not examined Terri Schiavo directly need to be able to decide who to believe when MDs claim that she can or cannot recover.
The fact that Hammesfahr makes bogus claims about being nominated for a Nobel Prize and having a proven track record with such cases says a lot about whether I should believe him. The fact that his fabrications are so easily detected says even more.
I have not examined the evidence regarding the credibility of the other William working for the Shindlers, but so far every one of their witnesses seem to have no real epistemic authority. They haven't examined the patient, or they don't have the relevant expertise, or they are simple hucksters.

- by rob loftis on Mar 24, 2005 at 4:51 PM | link

Ad hominem arguments are necessary when evaluating the reliability of expert testimony? The inescapable (logically speaking, that is) conclusion is that evaluations of the reliability of expert testimony are necessarily fallacious. Bunk! Citing _evidence_ of reliability or unreliability would seem to be a reasonable alternative to embracing fallacies. It's one thing to recognize that personal beliefs can bias one's judgment. It's quite another thing to provide evidence that one's judgment is in fact biased.

- by Bob Koepp on Mar 24, 2005 at 6:32 PM | link