Response to Lyon: Oranges, apples and polarizing polemic.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Anne Bruce, Rosanne Beuthin
{"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.

回应里昂:橘子、苹果和两极分化的论战。
在本文中,我们将对 C. Lyon 发表的评论文章《人与人之间的误解?C. Lyon 对 Beuthin 和 Bruce 关于临终医疗协助提供者生活经历的评论的回应。尽管就社会关注的话题进行热烈和相互尊重的辩论很重要,但我们要说明 Lyon 是如何对他根本不同意的研究结果做出两极分化的反应的。我们揭示了里昂是如何忽视原始研究解释性发现所依据的方法论背景的。这样,他就违反了学术批评的一个重要原则,使他的主张和动机受到质疑。我们认为,Lyon 的评论是一篇伪装成学术批评的观点文章,它将限制关于协助死亡的深思熟虑的对话,而这种对话可能会参与并产生跨越差异的新理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Death Studies
Death Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
7.90%
发文量
94
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信