Reportedly Margaret Somerville is at it again in the Globe and Mail, celebrating her scholarship

Ha, an odd weekend this has been. Instead of completing a book chapter that's due next weekend I spent most of the time emptying the basement to prepare it for a major remodelling job. Hard labour probably feels a bit like that.

In any case, over the weekend a whole bunch of people have written to me about Margaret Somerville who seemingly had yet another Somerville-on-soapbox-with-megaphone piece in the Globe and Mail newspaper. An opinion piece in which she reportedly whinges about being judged by others based on her religious convictions and not her ideas.

It is so so tempting, of course, to contact the paper and ask for the opportunity to reply to this utter nonsense. Alas, I have sworn to myself not to read its Opinion pages (I don't access them on the internet either) while it keeps in its employ a columnist who is a known plagiarist. The lack of editorial integrity that goes with such misguided policies should have some consequences, one being my 'don't read, don't contribute' policy.

I'm note saying that the Globe and Mail isn't worth reading. It has many fine journalists and writers working for it, but for better or worse it is seriously tainted by its editorial decision to keep said plagiarist writing for it. You can't take a broadsheet quite seriously that operates like that.

So, I've got to be clear here, I am responding to what has been reported to me about said article (that I won't link to either). Ms Somerville seems essentially to be complaining about people judging her by her religious beliefs and not by her ideas.

Ms Somerville's views are not seriously discussed in bioethics, despite her hard work at selling herself as a bona fide bioethicist in her newspaper and other appearances. She doesn't publish in serious, mainstream bioethics outlets or serious mainstream international academic publishing houses. On her website there is zero evidence that she has any academic qualifications in biomedical ethics. For years she has been marketing herself as the founding director of some bioethics outfit at McGill University. Really Ms Somerville? Bragging about having founded something many years ago as evidence of current-day academic competence?

Despite Ms Somerville's reported protestations (in said article) to the contrary,  this empress is really naked. The reason why virtually nobody seriously engaged academically with her is that there is little academic professional output to engage with. She pontificates mostly in newspapers, and it's always predictably Catholic output. To give you just three examples: Catholic Church: Assisted Dying = bad. Ms Somerville: Assisted Dying = bad. Catholic Church: marriage equality = bad. Ms Somerville: marriage equality = bad. Catholic Church: abortion = bad. Ms Somerville: abortion = bad.

Ms Somerville - to give credit where probably it isn't actually due - has tried hard over the years to cover her Catholic agitprop in bioethics language. Among her favourite covers is 'human dignity'. As far as she is concerned, assisted dying violates human dignity. Human dignity here simply stands for a Catholic understanding of what it is to be human and what it is to live a dignified human life. There's nothing else Ms Somerville has actually to offer. There are no ideas to engage with.

I do encourage you to check out Ms Somerville's Wikipedia entry. It seems to be a hard-fought-over entry. There are ongoing debates about her being turned down as an expert witness by US Courts. The entry tries hard - at the time of writing - to persuade us that Ms Somerville is a serious academic by showing off two article in the first volume of an unknown journal propagating Christian family values. It is all a bit of a joke, to put it mildly. An anti-gay campaign outlet masquerading as an academic journal, not affiliated with any serious international publisher. The Table of Contents downloads as MS Word documents. Hilarity all around here.

Perhaps, Ms Somerville, you would be better off stopping crying in public that nobody takes you quite seriously in the academy. It is you, after all, who has given professionals working in the field that you unjustifiably claim as your own so very little reason to engage you as an intellectual. If I wanted to engage thoughtful Catholic bioethicists, there are plenty of them. We do argue with each other. The key phrase here is that we 'argue'. Ms Somerville doesn't argue, she pontificates.

Margaret Somerville in secular garb - in the Catholic Register

Good fun, Margaret Somerville, a McGill law professor is interviewed in the Catholic Register. The main objective of the article is to figure out her 'secular stance' on assisted dying. For good measure, and presumably to ascribe expertise to her in matters bioethics, the Catholic Register describes her as a bioethics professor, yet McGill only notes her law school and her medical school professorial appointments. I was not able to find any evidence of her holding currently a formal appointment as a bioethics professor at that university. 

Evidence has never been MsSomerville's strongest point. So, without any evidence to back up her claims she declares on the Catholic website, 'One of the things that's wrong with respect to Justice (Lynn) Smith's judgment (in Carter v. Attorney General of B.C.) is that she purports to review the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the jurisdictions that have legalized it. She said there is no problem, there is no slippery slope. Well, that's simply not right factually.' 

It turns out, in our Report on end of life decision-making in Canada we reviewed the empirical evidence on the slippery slope matter and concluded that there is no evidence that assisted dying leads us down slippery slopes to unwanted killings. Of course, we reviewed evidence, Ms Somerville is in full preaching mode. 

Ms Somerville also declares that 'The biggest group who are against euthanasia are doctors, and certainly by far not all of them are Church people.' Things are more complicated. For instance, a survey of medical specialists in Quebec reported a strong majority of medical specialists in that province coming out in favour of decriminalizing assisted dying. 

Ms Somerville is also up to her old magic tricks when framing the issue at hand: 'The pro-euthanasia people are very keen on saying there's a societal consensus, that everyone wants this. Well yes, but you've got to make sure those surveys are properly done. If you say to somebody that someone is in terrible pain and they want euthanasia, should they be able to have it? You've got to choose between saying yes to euthanasia and saying no to pain and suffering relief. What you have to do is ask people, does someone have absolute rights to all possible pain management? And the answer is yes, absolutely.' [emphasis added]

This is a true Somerville classic. The choice is, of course, not between either pain relief or euthanasia. You want good palliative care and access to assisted dying for those who do not consider their lives worth living. It's not either euthanasia or palliative care. 

She is also against equal marriage rights, because 'of its impact on kids' rights.' It goes without saying that there is no evidence that kids brought up in same sex families are in any way worse off than those who are brought up in heterosexual families, or that their 'rights' are violated in any appreciable sense. But hey, Ms Somerville is concerned. Right. How about reading up on the evidence?  I understood this to be an important concept in law, but I might be mistaken. She also notes, incredibly, that as far as she knows, homosexuality is natural 'for some people'. You just got to love her! - It is not terribly surprising, perhaps, that Ms Somerville's views, these days, are not even accepted as expert advice by the courts. As far as I can tell (her McGill website, her Wikipedia entry), this 'bioethics professor' has no formal qualifications in either ethics or bioethics.

Margaret Somerville engages in anti-choice agitprop - again...

Margaret Somerville, a tireless campaigner for Catholic values the world all over, and a member of the law faculty at Canada's McGill university, has penned a truly embarrassing attack on the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision-Making Report in the Montreal Gazette. Without hesitation she repeats arguments that I have demonstrated in the blog entry below to be false and clearly deliberately misleading. My good colleague Daniel Weinstock, a Montreal based member of the expert panel, penned this in reply to Somerville's agitprop. Well worth reading and well worth disseminating. Ms Somerville, for far too long has got away with this kind of mischief making.

Ouch, Marge Somerville is at it again

The Vatican's voice at McGill University, Margaret Somerville, in her endless campaign against any kind of sexual activity other than that of the heterosexual married kind, has struck again. Typically in the Globe and Mail, a Toronto based rag considered a quality paper in Canada. Here's what she had to say.

Here's my response (kinda doubt you'd see it in the paper, so I thought posting it here can't hurt :-). Umm... I take it all 'back'. Here's the edited version of the letter that the paper published.

Sir,

Margaret Somerville's obsession with other people's sexual conduct knows clearly no end.

The obvious flaw in what goes as her argument is this: if incestuous activities among competent adults are truly voluntary, and no offspring is forthcoming, why should the state inflict religious mores of Somerville's kind on such citizens? Volenti non fit injuria - Did our self-appointed ethics scholar really never come across this basic legal and ethical concept?

Somerville's piece suffers from a fairly basic, yet lethal logic error, namely the idea that nature could somehow tell us anything at all about the question of whether incest is a morally good or a bad thing. Even if it were the case that other primates avoid incest, this would tell us nothing about our moral obligations in that regard. They don't drive cars either, so, according to Somerville's fawlty towers logic we should presumably reconsider the use of all means of
modern transport.

The Globe and Mail is to be congratulated for having, once again, commissioned a piece of Somerville agitprop that mistakenly ended up under the heading of 'ethics'. It is unfortunate, that you delayed publication of Somerville's piece to a date after April 01.

God week continued: Margaret Somerville wises up on polygamy

Margaret Somerville, the Vatican's permanent representative at McGill University in Montreal has published a piece titled 'If same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?' in today's Globe and Mail. She issues another dark warning that gay marriage (which as a Vatican emissary she doesn't like much) would lead to even worse stuff like polygamy. It's a truckload of bollocks, really, but it's fun to read, mostly because it is so badly argued that one wonders whether the newspaper just wants to get angry responses tearing her argument apart.

Anyway, keeping with the spirit of trying to entertain during the weekend, I wrote this tongue-in-cheek letter to the editor of that paper.

'Sir,

I read with great interest Professor Margaret Somerville's incisive
analysis on the vexing issue of gay marriage and polygamy (Sat Globe
'If same-sex marriage, why not polygamy?'). I am always amazed how
Professor Somerville manages to write brilliant treatises on ethical
issues, given her near-lack of professional training in the area. Not
only that, in a world of overpopulation, the destruction of the
environment, genocides and mass murder, she routinely addresses
ethical issues that really matter, such as polygamy.

Her analysis cannot be faulted. She realises that there is no need to
provide reasons in support of her basic premise. We all know, deep
deep in our souls, that the only and the true reason for why people
should get married is in order to breed. It's all nice and well that
those homosexuals go on about loving each other, but surely it is
self-evident that love is neither necessary nor sufficient for
marriage. It takes true intellectual leadership, such as that
displayed by Professor Somerville, to drive such obvious points home
to our by and large ignorant populace.

As a great admirer of Professor Somerville's leadership in a field
that in many, tragic ways ignores her, allow me to draw a few further
conclusions that seem to follow from her path-braking analysis. It
seems to me as if we need urgent legislation designed to dissolve all
marriages that have not been reproductively successful within a
certain period of time. It would make much more sense to enter
reproductive losers back into the pool of potential breeding partners
and let them marry again. So, may I suggest that, as a first step, we
agree on a time-limit on marriages. If there's no off-spring within,
say, a year, we issue a first warning, second and third warnings could
follow within a few months. If no pregnancy ensues there must be
compulsory divorces. There is no other way. We should not get swayed
by some overly romantic nonsense such as the couple's professed love
for each other. No breeding, no marriage. End of story. Furthermore,
we urgently need to introduce pre-wedding fertility tests. After all,
if they can't breed, they can't breed, they can't marry. Of course, we
must be very careful with folks trying to cheat the system by means of
artificial reproduction, surrogacy or (horror of horrors) adoption.
Just because there are a few million orphans on this planet doesn't
mean we should allow non-breeders to get away with such betrayal of
the primary function of marriage.

Prof Schuklenk is author of 'How He Did it in Seven Days', 'Why
Non-Breeders are Losers' and other essays, Flat Earth Press: Roma.'