A recent article by Martin Schechter and Michael O'Shaughnessy, "Krever 2008," [1] is a hypothetical transcript set in the future in which the authors present the testimony of an "expert witness" who purportedly represents the collective wisdom of today's political policy-makers. The witness' arguments are neatly demolished by the fictitious commissioner, and the witness and his position are made to look foolish and weak.
In doing this the authors have set up a "straw-man" argument, so called because it is easier to knock down a man of straw than a real opponent. Another explanation is that, in the 19th century, witnesses-for-hire would hang about law courts, willing to say whatever was requested. These untrustworthy characters were identified by a straw in their shoe. [2]
Schechter and O'Shaughnessy create the impression that their opponents' point of view has been properly represented and justly defeated, but in fact no debate has taken place. An opponent of needle-exchange programs could easily write a similar script that would have a very different and equally unsubstantiated verdict. The authors may or may not be correct in their conclusions, but we won't know until a full and proper deliberation has occurred and each side has advanced its own arguments instead of relying on partisan interpretation of each other's views.
Robert Patterson, MD
Leamington, Ont.
References
- 1.
- 2.