The anti-intellectualism of Channel 4's Dispatches: What We Need to Know
‘Scientific evidence’
There seems to be a constant confusion about what ‘evidence’ actually is. One doctor saying that his research signals that a foetus can feel pain before 24 weeks is just one doctor. Science is about corroboration and scientific consensus. The scientific and medical consensus is that we cannot determine whether the foetus can feel pain at this stage, and that there are other factors that need to be taken into account. Instead Dr Anand is presented as a maverick rallying against the scientific establishment. This is why Governments consult and membership organisations vote on policies – its not just about one person’s opinion.
Repeatedly in the programme they referred to the “scientific advancement” of Professor Stuart Campbell’s 4D Imaging. This is in fact a “technological advancement” which tells us nothing about the intrinsic development of the foetus i.e. whether it can feel, is conscious etc.
Professor Campbell kept talking about the foetus “smiling” and moving away from pain stimulus as a sign of awareness or “humanity”. Again, this is highly unscientific. Amoebas move away from pain stimulus, it is an autonomic reflex. And pictures of a foetus “smiling” is simply our own projection; muscle movements that we interpret as smiling. Again this kind of opinion should not be used to determine our laws.
Emotion as evidence
The point of a representative democracy, the rule of law and the theory behind the policy process is that rules, laws and regulations must be made based on evidence, rationality and argument. Of course this is often not the case, however it is intended to stop things like vigilantism and mob-rule. Laws based on emotion lead to barbarism.
But there was very little in this programme that wasn’t about emotion. Things “felt wrong” or “looked wrong”. This is all fair enough, humans react to things as human, we have feelings and emotion. But this should not affect how we make our laws and should not extend to us imposing our views on others because these images are unsettling.
Choice of Speakers
This was highly selective. The makers will and have claimed that they represented the pro-choice view and the views of women who have had or were having an abortion. However, the selection of speakers, how long they spoke for and how their views were challenged demonstrates a bias.
Plus interspersed with the interviews were images of abortions taking place, a propaganda film from an American Pro-Life Group (reporter’s words not mine), footage of anti-abortion protests in the US including interviews with protesters (where views were unchallenged), and the 4D imaging of a foetus for a couple who had previously decided on an abortion but changed their minds.
Dr Trevor Stammers a Pro Life GP gave his view and the view of the Christian Medical Fellowship. He’s views were rarely challenged and he was not asked to justify the statement that “our liberal abortion laws undoubtably cause the high levels of abortion we have.” Seeminlgy ignoring the fact that lowering the time limits for abortion will have an insignificant effect on the numbers of abortion in this country.
The programme also “revealed” that over 50% of GPs think the tie limit should be reduced. Why were GPs asked? They don’t perform abortions. Here’s a crazy idea, why don’t we ask women with unwanted pregnancies what they think?
The scene with the 4D imagining of the young couple’s foetus is particularly manipulative. Manipulative because this imagining is only available privately and I presume that in this case they only had it done because it was paid for by the programme makers. It was paid for by the programme makers presumably to illustrate the point that if you don’t have an abortion you will go on to have a baby. Er, yeah thanks for that.
Graphic images
There has been much debate about the graphic images in this programme and whether they should be shown. Personally I don’t like watching any medical procedures on telly; injections, appendix removal, surgical enhancements, that rank programme Life Works (urg). So yes, I didn’t exactly like watching an abortion.
What is worrying here is why these images are being shown. The programme makers feel that they are important and add to the debate. But do they? Were we really in any doubt that abortions involved removing foetuses? Does this add anything to our scientific knowledge? Or does it play on the fact that most would find these images hard to look at and disturbing, but should this affect public policy? Is abortion an aesthetic judgement?
I believe the motivation behind showing these images is to affect people emotionally not intellectually. They do not add to the debate in terms of science or principle but instead attempt to encourage people to over-ride their intellectual treatment of this issue and focus on the aesthetics of it. This is something that “looks” like a baby is elevated about the argument that women should be able to control what happens to their body.
Other News
Time limits, do advances in science make the case for a reduction?
Abortion is reserved to Westminster, why is this an issue for the Scottish Parliament?
The anti-intellectualism of Channel 4's Dispatches
Public opinion is pro-choice in the UK, why should we be worried?
Statement on Disability & Abortion