{"title":"Response to Lyon: Oranges, apples and polarizing polemic.","authors":"Anne Bruce, Rosanne Beuthin","doi":"10.1080/07481187.2024.2369380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper we respond to the commentary, Human misconnection? A response to Beuthin and Bruce on Medical Assistance in Dying providers' lived experience, by C. Lyon. While spirited and respectful debate of topics of interest to society are important, we illustrate how Lyon offers a polarizing reaction to findings with which he simply does not agree. We surface how Lyon ignores the methodological context underpinning the interpretive findings of the original study. In so doing, he violates an important tenet of scholarly critique and renders his claims and motivation questionable. We argue that Lyon's commentary is an opinion piece disguised as scholarly critique that will limit thoughtful conversation about assisted dying that might otherwise engage and generate new understandings across difference.</p>","PeriodicalId":11041,"journal":{"name":"Death Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Death Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2024.2369380","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this paper we respond to the commentary, Human misconnection? A response to Beuthin and Bruce on Medical Assistance in Dying providers' lived experience, by C. Lyon. While spirited and respectful debate of topics of interest to society are important, we illustrate how Lyon offers a polarizing reaction to findings with which he simply does not agree. We surface how Lyon ignores the methodological context underpinning the interpretive findings of the original study. In so doing, he violates an important tenet of scholarly critique and renders his claims and motivation questionable. We argue that Lyon's commentary is an opinion piece disguised as scholarly critique that will limit thoughtful conversation about assisted dying that might otherwise engage and generate new understandings across difference.
期刊介绍:
Now published ten times each year, this acclaimed journal provides refereed papers on significant research, scholarship, and practical approaches in the fast growing areas of bereavement and loss, grief therapy, death attitudes, suicide, and death education. It provides an international interdisciplinary forum in which a variety of professionals share results of research and practice, with the aim of better understanding the human encounter with death and assisting those who work with the dying and their families.