tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post5436757999474400032..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Lessons from assisted suicide campaigner’s deathPeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-31521036072009193992012-03-11T21:32:15.566-07:002012-03-11T21:32:15.566-07:00You haven't answered 1. I shall ask again: can...You haven't answered 1. I shall ask again: can you give a time frame within which you would say their argument has merit?<br /><br />2. fair enough.<br /><br />3. I think that 60% within half to double is fairly accurate when the time scale we are discussing is a year. What would you accept as a reasonable figure?<br /><br />4. It is impossible to round up 3 fractions of 100 and get a result above 102 - I realise that Maths may not be your specialist subject and I don't expect it to be, but feel free to check with any mathematician...<br />eg 33.1, 33.1, 33.8 = 34, 34, 34 = 102. <br /><br />Therefore: The argument you put forward, which is balanced upon those numbers, fails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-3718736336254881592012-03-11T11:10:49.578-07:002012-03-11T11:10:49.578-07:001. I am simply making the point that 'less tha...1. I am simply making the point that 'less than twelve months to live' is not a robust safeguard because of the unreliability of prognosticating life expectancy.<br /><br />2. If so only very distant. I am a fifth generation New Zealander and Saunders is a not uncommon name.<br /><br />3. 60% of cases being within half or double is not accurate predicting. This means 40% were less than half or greater than twice actual.<br /><br />4. They have clearly rounded all three up as they don't include decimal points.<br /><br />The argument stands!Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-21662847540811016702012-03-10T19:52:17.491-08:002012-03-10T19:52:17.491-08:00Firstly, being as you are so against the 'Twel...Firstly, being as you are so against the 'Twelve months to live', can you give a time frame within which you would say their argument has merit? If not then I suggest that you aren't against the time scale they offer but against any idea that very sick people should be allowed to ask for assistance to ease their passing.<br /><br />Secondly, you quote Professor John Saunders saying:<br /><i>'Prognostication may be better when somebody is within the last two or three weeks of their life. I have to say that, when they are six or eight months away from it, it is actually pretty desperately hopeless'</i> <br />Which raises the question, is this a relative of yours?<br /><br />You then go on to quote figures which show that:<br /><i>61% between half to double their predicted</i><br />Which directly contradicts the quote from Prof Saunders - it clearly is possible to give a reasonably accurate prediction.<br /><br />However, the figures you posted also look like someone cant add:<br /><i>29% were within 0.67–1.33 times the patient's actual survival, 35% were too optimistic (>1.33 times the actual survival), and 39% were too pessimistic (<0.67 times the actual survival). </i><br />29 + 35 + 39 = 103<br /><br />You figures, like the argument, dont add up :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com