THW BAN FOR PROFIT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

For-profit higher education in the United States (known as for-profit college or

proprietary education in some instances) refers to higher education educational institutions
operated by private, profit-seeking businesses. Historically, most colleges and universities in the
US have been non-profit, but for-profit institutions rapidly grew in number and size from 1972
to 2009. This also includes culinary arts schools and certain vocational for-profit schools.
Although supporters of for-profit higher education have argued that the profit motive
encourages efficiency, the for-profit educational industry has received severe negative criticism
because of its sales techniques, high costs, and poor student outcomes. In some cases
operators of for-profit colleges have faced criminal charges or other legal sanctions.[1][2][3][4][5]

Since 2010, for-profit colleges have received greater scrutiny and negative attention from the
US government, state Attorneys General, the media, and scholars.[6][7] However, the Donald
Trump administration and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have accused the government of
regulatory overreach and have loosened regulations.[8]

In 2016, research by Treasury Department economist Nicholas Turner and George Washington
University economist Stephanie Riegg Cellini found that students who attended for-profit
colleges would have been better off not going to college at all, or attending a community
college (which are non-profit); put differently, the for-profit colleges left students worse off
than they were when they started. The National Bureau of Economic Research paper was based
on an analysis of 567,000 students who attended for-profit colleges from 2006 to 2008. More
than 80% carried student loan debt.[9]

The Department of Veterans Affairs has also reported that veterans using the GI Bill for
education submitted more complaints about for-profit colleges, particularly University of
Phoenix, ITT Technical Institute, Devry University, and Colorado Technical University, than their
public or private non-profit counterparts.[10]

1|SAVE DC 2018
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the 12-year student loan default rate
for for-profit colleges is 52 percent.[11] The 12-year student loan default rate for African
Americans going to for-profit colleges is 65.7 percent.[12]

The advocacy group the Debt Collective has created its own, unofficial "Defense to Repayment
App" that allows former students of schools accused of fraud to pursue debt cancellation. [13]
The applications generated through the Debt Collective's online form were cited by the
Department of Education in a Federal Register notice, which said that "a need for a clearer
process for potential claimants" arose due to the submission of over 1000 defense to
repayment claims by "a building debt activism movement".[14]

Dozens of for-profit colleges could be forced to close in the next several years. This week, the
Obama administration published a list of schools and programs that are at risk of losing access
to the federal loans many of them depend on to survive.

More than 800 vocational programs the department reviewed (at for-profit schools, private
nonprofit schools, and public community colleges) failed to show that their graduates were able
to find decent jobs, meaning the former students have annual loan payments that are more
than 30 percent of their discretionary income and more than 12 percent of their total earnings.

Not insignificantly, virtually all—98 percent—of the programs that do not meet that bar are for-
profit schools. Not a single community college appears on the list. If schools that have been
flagged by the government don’t begin to turn things around within several years, they stand to
lose aid, and, in many cases, would likely shutter as a result.

2|SAVE DC 2018
And now, in what one of the authors says is coincidental timing, a new study paints a picture of
where the students who are affected by the closure of for-profit schools might go by examining
how a similar period of increased regulation of the industry played out in the past.

In an NBER working paper entitled “Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose
Federal Aid?,” the researchers Stephanie Cellini, Rajeev Darolia, and Lesley Turner (professors
who study public policy and economics at George Washington University, the University of
Missouri, and the University of Maryland, respectively) looked at students who attended for-
profit colleges in the 1990s. Back in the ‘80s, the number of for-profit schools was expanding
and the government created a rule aimed at sanctioning schools where a lot of former students
defaulted on their federal loans. It was a scenario not unlike today. More than 1,200 for-profits
faced sanctions in the ‘90s, according to the researchers.

The researchers found that when schools were threatened with the loss of access to federal
aid, the percentage of Pell grant recipients (low-income students who depend on federal grants
and loans to pay for their higher education) who enrolled declined by about 53 percent in the
following five years. Interestingly, enrollment at neighboring for-profit schools also fell, even if
they weren’t sanctioned, perhaps because the reputation of the entire sector was damaged by
the sanctions.

That might sound dire; but it turns out these students weren’t dropping out of college
completely. The researchers found that the post-sanction declines in enrollment at for-profit
colleges didn’t actually reduce aggregate educational attainment. In other words, the students
enrolled in community colleges within the county. And with community colleges costing a
fraction of what two-year for-profit colleges cost, federal student-loan borrowing and default
rates also declined. In fact, the researchers estimate that 70 percent of the students who
stopped borrowing because they switched to a different school would have defaulted on their
loans had they remained at the for-profit colleges.

This would seem to push back at the idea, put forth by the for-profit industry, that the rules
around how and which schools gain access to aid hinder student achievement. A

3|SAVE DC 2018
disproportionate percentage of first-generation, veteran, and minority students enroll in for-
profit colleges, and the industry has long argued that constricting its reach would harm these
students.

Yet the new data released by the administration and this working paper seem to suggest that
these students, on the whole, fare okay when such regulations exist, particularly when they
have a chance to enroll in schools that are less expensive and have the same (and in many cases
better) employment outcomes.

U.S. Education Secretary John King declined to speculate on how Trump’s team might handle
the regulation.

It’s important to point out that it’s still too soon to know how students who attend the just-
named schools will fare. But it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect to see similar patterns take
shape in the coming years.

Right now, for-profits can get up to 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid, and the
working paper cites studies that have shown that when the schools have access to federal aid,
they charge significantly more than similar programs without access to aid. Likewise, when the
amount of money the government puts toward Pell grants rises, researchers have found an
uptick in the number of for-profit colleges opening, particularly in areas with lots of low-income
students who have access to those grants.

But just as sanctions in the ‘90s had an effect on the for-profit industry’s reach, the Education
Department estimates that there are fewer than 29,000 vocational programs subject to the
regulation today, down from more than 37,000 in 2014. For instance, the for-profit giants ITT
Tech and Corinthian Colleges shuttered their campuses after the Obama administration slapped
them with federal sanctions. And last month, the agency that accredited the schools also lost its
recognition from the Education Department as a valid accreditor, meaning the other schools it
authorized will need to find a new agency to avoid losing their federal aid.

4|SAVE DC 2018
Still, it’s also worth noting that there are some variables today that could ultimately make the
landscape look very different than it did in the ‘90s.

For one thing, Donald Trump is about to be president, and he and the people he’s tapped to
lead his administration have pushed back at what they view as cumbersome federal overreach.
The administration could try to repeal the rule, or it could simply fail to enforce it. During a call
with reporters this week to discuss the new data, U.S. Education Secretary John King declined
to speculate on how Trump’s team might handle the regulation, but acknowledged that the
next administration could choose to “revisit” the regulatory process. That’s clearly something
for-profit investors are banking on; after Trump’s election several for-profit colleges saw their
stock prices rise.

Secondly, the community colleges that former for-profit students were able to enroll in back in
the ‘90s were frequently less crowded and less cash-strapped then. Today, some community
colleges have interest from more students than they are equipped to handle, and a number of
states have rolled back funding for public education. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, funding for two- and four-year colleges is almost $10 billion lower than it was
before the recession.

The researchers acknowledge this, but their suggestion that states would be wise to increase
funding for community colleges during periods of heavy regulation is perhaps unrealistically
optimistic. (Stephanie Cellini, a professor at George Washington University and one of the
authors of the paper, suggested during a phone interview that the possibility—largely absent in
the ‘90s—for colleges to deliver education online might limit some of the potential for issues
around capacity.)

Ultimately, it’s too early to tell what the for-profit sector will look like in the coming years. And
the new data suggests there is real reason to be cautious about enrolling in a number of for-
profit schools. But Secretary King also said during the call that higher education is still a wise
investment. It’s just important to understand which programs are worth the money, and which
are, as he put it, a “liability.”

5|SAVE DC 2018
'Predator colleges' should be shut down
(CNN)Sunday's announcement that Corinthian Colleges Inc. would shut down all of its
remaining 28 campuses is a positive development in a long struggle to hold for-profit colleges
accountable.

Corinthian, which once enrolled more than 70,000 students, is one of the worst of the
"predator colleges" -- schools that offer dubious degrees, saddle students with high amounts of
debt and gobble up tens of billions of dollars in federal money every year. Many of these
schools are for-profit career colleges that operate mostly online. It's no wonder that Corinthian
is doing this after the U.S. Department of Education curtailed its access to federal student aid
last summer.

There are about 1.3 million students enrolled in for-profit colleges, many of which have
questionable track records, and their students need help transitioning into legitimate
postsecondary schools. With Uncle Sam's student loan debt sheet topping $1 trillion, we
literally can't afford to continue funding for-profit colleges -- which reportedly get 86% of their
funding from federal student loan money.
For those not familiar with the for-profit college fiasco, here's the whole story in one telling
statistic: While for-profit colleges enroll only 13% of the nation's college students, such colleges
account for nearly half of all student loan defaults, according to Department of Education
statistics.
For comparison's sake, the default rate of for-profit college students is worse than the default
rate of the worst subprime borrowers during the financial crisis.
How do these colleges operate? It's deviously simple: Convince low-income students into
borrowing tens of thousands of dollars through easy federal student loans, keep costs low
through online classes and part-time professors, and watch the money roll in.
The aggressive tactics of these colleges boggle the mind. Recruiters are told to make 100 phone
calls and leave 100 messages a day, according to a ProPublica investigation.

6|SAVE DC 2018
I can personally attest to the aggressive tactics. My phone number was accidentally placed on a
call list for a for-profit college recently, and I received so many calls per day that I had to ask my
wireless carrier to block the phone number.
Stopping the exploitation of students isn't easy. The for-profit college business is a multibillion-
dollar industry. The CEOs of these companies make millions of dollars a year, employ an army
of lobbyists and donate money to both political parties.
But the past two months brought a new twist to the crisis. Hundreds of graduates of the now-
defunct Corinthian joined a "debt strike," publicly declaring their refusal to pay back their loans.
In response, Education Department Secretary Arne Duncan signaled a willingness to forgive
loans of Corinthian graduates who have crushing debt and no job prospects.
Now that Corinthian is finally shutting down, we must finish the job.
The remaining for-profit colleges should be closed. Any student not gainfully employed or
transferred to a reputable college within three years should be considered a victim, and their
debts should be forgiven.
Yes, "victim" is the right word. If these degrees actually helped people get jobs, we should be
celebrating them. But according to a jaw-dropping report by the Education Department, the
average graduate of an online for-profit college makes less than a high school dropout.
Not the equivalent of a high school dropout. Less than a high school dropout.
The real-life misery caused by predatory colleges is painful to hear about. One Corinthian
graduate has $37,000 in debt for his computer science degree, but he can't even get a job at
Best Buy, according to Slate. Another graduate, $33,000 in debt, has a medical assisting degree,
but she gave up on finding employment in her field. She waits tables now, The Chronicle of
Higher Education says.
I can already hear your next question. If for-profit colleges are this terrible, are they at least
cheaper? No. In fact, their cost is reportedly around 60% higher than a comparable degree from
a public college.
What's even more frustrating is that we've known about the shenanigans of these predator
colleges for years. A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office found widespread

7|SAVE DC 2018
rule breaking by the largest for-profit colleges -- everything from accepting fictitious high-
school diplomas to encouraging plagiarism and cheating.
In one example, an undercover federal investigator posing as a student was told by a professor,
"It's not hard to get a 100% on the second try; just jot down the correct answers and take the
quiz again," according to The New York Times.
In 2013, Career Education Corp. paid $10 million to settle charges by the state of New York
regarding phony job-placement claims. All told, no fewer than 36 state attorneys general were
investigating for-profit colleges in 2014.
After selling off 95 of its campuses last year, Corinthian said on Sunday that it tried
unsuccessfully to sell the remaining 28 campuses, blaming the failure on "federal and state
regulators seeking to impose financial penalties and conditions" on potential buyers.
You can't hide your bad behavior forever, and the questionable practices of many for-profit
colleges are starting to catch up with them. Enrollment at the University of Phoenix -- the
largest for-profit college in the United States -- has fallen by half, to about 213,000.
We laid the smackdown on predatory lenders during the financial crisis, and it's time to do the
same thing with for-profit colleges. To keep predator colleges from wrecking our faith in the
college degree -- still the best pathway to a middle-class life -- we need to act now.
For-profit colleges have flunked their final exam. Now it's up to their rich benefactor, Uncle
Sam, to make sure they don't go back to school in the fall.

The Case Against For-Profit Colleges and

Universities
There are many critics of for-profit colleges and universities.

Probably the most prominent critic is U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa.

8|SAVE DC 2018
Harkin has several specific concerns about for-profits, but his overriding problem with the
industry is that, in his view, for-profit schools care more about making money than

"They're on the hook to Wall Street," he says.

Harkin chairs the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). Between
June 2010 and July 2012, the HELP Committee conducted an investigation of the for-profit
higher education industry that included a number of high-profile hearings on Capitol Hill,
several scathing reports by Harkin's staff and the Government Accountability Office, and a final
report that is 5,234 pages long.

Harkin is particularly critical of the University of Phoenix. He thinks when the school was
founded in 1976 it had a "pretty good model." Back then, Phoenix students had to have two
years of college credit already, they had to have work experience, and they had to be at least
23 years old.

"They started out as a college completion school," says Harkin. Many of the students were
successful. But then the school "kept expanding and expanding and expanding, and so it kind of
morphed into this behemoth that it is now," he says.

The University of Phoenix is the nation's largest private university. Its enrollment peaked in
2010 with 470,800 students, more than in all the universities of the Big Ten Conference
combined. But according to the HELP investigation, more than 60 percent of the students who
started degrees at the University of Phoenix in 2008-2009 ended up leaving by the middle of
2010 without a degree. The students who quit had been enrolled for a median of four months.

Harkin believes the University of Phoenix went wrong in 1994 when it became a publicly traded
company.

"I think what really turned this company is when they started going to Wall Street," he says.
"[They] started raising hedge fund money, and then they had to meet quarterly reports, and all
they were interested in, basically, was 'How much money ya makin'?'"

9|SAVE DC 2018
The Role of Wall Street

Students have been going to for-profit colleges for a long time. One of the oldest for-profits is
Strayer University, founded in 1892 in Baltimore as a business college. For decades Strayer
operated as a small, regional school offering training in skills such as shorthand, typing and
accounting. Some of the first students were farm workers looking for new ways to make a
living.

In 1996, Strayer College established Strayer Education, Inc. and went to Wall Street to raise
capital for expansion. At the time, several other for-profit schools were going public, too; the
University of Phoenix had done so two years earlier.

Wall Street capital allowed schools like Phoenix and Strayer to get much bigger. Strayer went
from having fewer than 10,000 students in 1996 to more than 60,000 students by 2010.
Phoenix grew from about 10,000 students to more than 100,000 students in the five years after
it went public -- and then nearly quintupled in size over the next decade.

By 2010, about 10 percent of all U.S. college students were attending for-profit schools. Close
to 80 percent of those students were enrolled at schools owned by publicly traded companies
or private equity firms.

Harkin thinks this is a problem. For-profit companies are ultimately accountable to shareholders
and investors. To stay in business, they must produce returns. Harkin's investigation found that
publicly traded companies operating for-profit colleges had an average profit margin of 19.7
percent. In 2009, the Apollo Group -- the company that owns University of Phoenix -- allocated
27 percent of its revenue to profit, according to Harkin's investigation.

It's hard to compare that figure to public and nonprofit colleges and universities because those
schools don't make "profit," though they certainly generate lots of revenue through tuition,
grants and other sources. Harkin's committee compared the amount of money spent on
student instruction by different kinds of colleges. In fiscal year 2009, the 30 for-profit education
companies examined by the HELP committee spent 17.7 percent of all revenue on student

10 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
instruction. On average, the companies spent $2,050 per student. Apollo -- the University of
Phoenix parent company -- spent $892 per student according to the committee's analysis.

The HELP committee did not come up with a corresponding average for public or nonprofit
colleges, but it compared each for-profit school to nearby "traditional" colleges -- a community
college, a state university and a private nonprofit college. The committee found that the
traditional schools it compared to the University of Phoenix spent between $3,344 and $11,128
per student on instruction.

Harkin wants the University of Phoenix and other for-profits to put more of the money they
take in toward student instruction, and less toward marketing, recruiting and executive pay.

Executive Pay

Executives and presidents at for-profit colleges and universities are typically better paid than
their peers at nonprofit institutions, both public and private.

According to the HELP committee, the CEOs of publicly traded for-profit higher education
companies took home, on average, $7.3 million in 2009. Those pay packages typically include
stocks, options and bonuses; the value of an executive's pay changes depending on the
company's and the executive's performance.

In contrast to the for-profit industry, the five highest-paid leaders of large public universities
averaged total compensation of $1 million, according to the HELP committee. At private,
nonprofit schools, the five highest-paid leaders averaged total compensation of $3 million a
year.

According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, University of Phoenix founder John
Sperling, who is chairman of the board of the Phoenix parent company, Apollo Group, received
total compensation of $8.6 million in 2009. The next-highest-paid executive, Apollo Group
president Joseph D'Amico, earned total compensation of $5.1 million. Other top executives
earned between $1.6 and $2.3 million in 2009.

11 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
The highest-paid president of a public university in 2009 was E. Gordon Gee of Ohio State. Gee
earned $1.3 million in total compensation, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Many college football coaches are paid even better. An analysis by USA Today found that 37
football coaches made more than $2 million in 2009. Most of those coaches work at public
universities.

Marketing

The University of Phoenix has a vast and sophisticated marketing and recruiting operation. In
2011 the Phoenix parent company, Apollo Group, spent more than $1 billion on recruiting and
marketing -- about 23 percent of the company's revenue.

The company will not say how many recruiters it employs, but Harkin's committee found that
the 30 for-profit companies it investigated employed, on average, one recruiter for every 48
students.

The University of Phoenix does not have any employees it calls "recruiters." They are called
enrollment advisers. Some of those enrollment advisers are based at University of Phoenix
locations around the country, where they often meet with prospective students face to face.
But many of the advisers are located in Phoenix, where they work in big rooms that look and
sound like call centers.

At the company's headquarters, a collection of modest office buildings near the Phoenix
airport, about 700 advisers work in two buildings -- and that's just to service online students in
the central United States. Some of the advisers focus specifically on enrollment. Other advisers
specialize in financial aid or academics. Every student who enrolls at Phoenix now gets one of
each kind of adviser; the company calls this a "graduation team."

The advisers sit at cubicles decorated with pictures of their families as well as University of
Phoenix pins and bumper stickers and, in some cases, grateful letters from students they have
worked with. Advisers spend most of their day on the phone. They help prospective students

12 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
figure out what degree they want, fill out financial aid forms, and gather the paperwork needed
for a transcript review of previous college credits.

The University of Phoenix says these advisers make the complex process of signing up for
college and applying for financial aid simpler and more user friendly.

But Bob Shireman, former deputy undersecretary of education in the Barack Obama
administration, says Phoenix and other for-profit colleges make college too easy to buy.

"They get the train moving down the track, and the next thing you know you're signed up for
the program," says Shireman. "You've taken out a federal loan, and it's happened, sort of like
buying something at the checkout stand at the store. You didn't totally plan it, but you kind of
had a little bit of interest and next thing you know, you're a student."

Shireman is particularly concerned about low-income and first-generation college students,

who may not know much about how college works and may not understand that even if all of
their tuition is covered by federal aid, they will have to pay back the money that comes from
loans -- whether they finish their degree or not.

Virtually all (96 percent) of the students who go to for-profit schools borrow money. By
comparison, 13 percent of students at community colleges, 48 percent at four-year public
schools and 57 percent at four-year private nonprofit colleges borrow to pay tuition.

There are several reasons for this. Tuition is typically higher at for-profits than at public schools
-- in part because when a student goes to a public school, state taxpayers are footing some of
the bill, lowering the tuition price. Private nonprofit colleges often reduce the sticker price for
students through scholarships and other kinds of institutional aid. And students who go to for-
profit schools are more likely to be low-income than students at other kinds of colleges. They
have to borrow to pay tuition.

Bob Shireman is concerned that students who go to for-profit schools don't realize they might
be able to go to public colleges, where they'd typically pay less. He says the extensive marketing

13 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
by for-profits -- slick TV ads and abundant Internet pop-ups -- overwhelms the marketplace and
crowds out public schools that don't, or can't, spend millions of dollars a year on marketing.

Shireman and other critics of for-profits are also concerned that some schools use aggressive or
misleading tactics to get students to sign up. There is evidence that some schools, including
Phoenix, did this, at least in the past.

A 2007 University of Phoenix training manual obtained by the Senate HELP committee
instructed recruiters to push prospective students to enroll by creating a sense of urgency. You
have "to challenge [students] to act NOW," the manual said.

Another training document stated: "Do not tell the student we have classes running every week
unless you can agree on a start date." To create urgency, recruiters were instructed to avoid
telling prospective students, "[Y]ou have plenty of time to get everything in order," because "if
the student thinks he/she has plenty of time, he/she might wait and apply later."

The company told the HELP committee that the training manual is no longer in use. (Read the
University of Phoenix/Apollo Group response to the HELP committee investigation.)

According to the committee's final report, "[M]any companies used tactics that misled
prospective students with regard to the cost of the program, the availability and obligations of
financial aid, the time to complete the program, the completion rates of other students, the job
placement rate of other students, the transferability of the credit, or the reputation and
accreditation of the school."

Another concern is how enrollment advisers were managed and paid. The HELP committee
found that in order to achieve company enrollment goals, recruiting managers at some
companies "created a boiler-room atmosphere, in which hitting an enrollment quota was
recruiters' highest priority. Recruiters who failed to bring in enough students were put through
disciplinary processes and sometimes terminated."

14 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Some companies paid recruiters based on how many students they enrolled. This kind of
"incentive compensation" has a long and somewhat complicated history.

Back in 1992, in response to evidence that recruiters at some for-profit colleges were being
paid based on how many students they enrolled, Congress passed a series of reforms that
banned incentive compensation for college recruiters and personnel.

A decade later, in response to lobbying by the growing for-profit college industry, the
Department of Education under President George W. Bush added a series of "safe harbors" that
allowed some forms of incentive pay. Two former employees of the University of Phoenix filed
a whistleblower lawsuit in 2003 that alleged that Apollo, the Phoenix parent company, violated
those rules. Apollo paid the government $67.5 million to settle the lawsuit in 2009, plus $11
million in lawyers' fees. The company admitted no wrongdoing in the case.

The Department of Education under President Barack Obama eliminated the "safe harbors"
that made some forms of incentive compensation legal. University of Phoenix officials say the
rules regarding what counts as incentive compensation were and continue to be unclear. In
response, the company says it eliminated "enrollment results as a component of compensation
for our admissions personnel" effective September 1, 2010.

The company was sued again in May 2011 by two other whistleblowers who allege the
University of Phoenix continued to pay advisers based on the number of students they enrolled.
That lawsuit is ongoing.

Student Jeff Holmes says enrollment advisers misled him about how long earning a degree
would take and how much it would cost. He sees the University of Phoenix as "kind of like a car
dealership."

"They want to get you in the door," he says. And like a car dealer, they "want you to have
success with the car. They want it to go well for you. But if it doesn't, they've already been
paid."

15 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Holmes is four years into a master's degree and more than $60,000 in debt. Most of that debt is
in the form of federal student loans. The University of Phoenix already has the money; it's the
federal government Holmes is paying now.

The Role of Federal Money

One of Harkin's biggest problems with for-profit colleges is the amount of money they get from
the federal government.

In 2009, the 15 publicly traded for-profit education companies in the United States received 86
percent of their revenues from taxpayers, according to the HELP committee. The committee
estimates the University of Phoenix parent company got 88.7 percent of its revenue from
federal education funds.

Most of this money is from federal student loans, and from federal grants for low-income
students, known as Pell Grants. In 2009-10, for-profit colleges received $32 billion from these
programs, 25 percent of the total spent at all colleges and universities in the United States --
even though only about 10 percent of all college students went to for-profit schools.

The school that collects more Pell Grant dollars than any other is the University of Phoenix; it
collected more than $1 billion from the Pell Grant program in 2010.

The other major source of federal spending at for-profit schools is programs designed to help
members of the military and veterans. Fifty percent of Department of Defense tuition
assistance benefits go to students at for-profit colleges, as do 37 percent of the benefits that
come from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The University of Phoenix gets about 86 percent of its revenue
from federal financial aid programs and about 3 percent from Department of Defense and Post-
9/11 GI Bill funds.

Harkin and a number of other critics of for-profit schools charge that the schools specifically
target low-income and military students because federal aid programs can cover their tuition.

16 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
But for-profit schools take issue with this charge. They contend they are offering high-quality
education to people who might not otherwise have access to it. They say the increase in the
proportion of their revenue that comes from the federal government is due to the fact that the
government has expanded federal student aid programs in recent years. And they point out
that the vast majority of the federal money they get comes from loan programs, not grants.

Mark Brenner, senior vice president of external affairs for the University of Phoenix parent
company, Apollo Group, says a loan should not be characterized as government money because
it's the student who ultimately pays the bill. Loans are "not federal dollars," Brenner says,
because "it's the student's obligation, not the government's or the taxpayers' obligation" to pay
the money back.

But a lot of students at for-profits default on their loans.

Default and Dropout Rates

Student loan default rates have become a big political issue in recent years.

More than one in five students who enroll at a for-profit school end up defaulting within three
years of starting to repay their loans. Students who attended for-profit colleges account for
close to half of all federal student loan defaults. Some of the students in default have their
degrees -- but many of them don't. A study by Education Sector, an independent education
policy think tank in Washington, D.C., shows that borrowers who drop out are more than four
times more likely to default on their loans than those who graduate. Dropout rates at for-profit
colleges tend to be high.

The for-profit sector has "the dubious distinction of having the highest debt levels, the highest
default rates, and some of the lowest completion rates," says Pauline Abernathy, vice president
of the Institute for College Access and Success, an advocacy organization that's been one of the
chief critics of for-profits. Abernathy told the Senate HELP committee that students at for-
profits who finish their degrees are more likely to be in default than students who dropped out
of public and nonprofit colleges.

17 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
It's tricky to compare dropout rates among different kinds of colleges because the U.S.
Department of Education only counts students who are first-time, full-time students. The
majority of students at many for-profit colleges are not first-time, full-time students. The
industry argues that the official data does not provide an accurate picture of what is happening
with students at for-profits.

This is one reason the Senate HELP Committee did its own analysis of dropout rates at for-profit
schools. The committee gathered enrollment and withdrawal data from each school and
calculated that, of the students who enrolled in 2008-2009, 54 percent had left without a
degree by the middle of 2010. The withdrawal rate from the University of Phoenix was 60.5
percent, higher than the industry average. Most of the students who quit Phoenix were in
associate's degree programs. In fact, if you look at just students in bachelor's degree programs,
students at the University of Phoenix were less likely to withdraw in the period examined than
students in bachelor's degree programs at most other for-profits.

It may be shocking to learn that 54 percent of students who enrolled at for-profits quit within a
year and a half (and more students likely withdrew in the subsequent months and years,
without finishing their degrees). But consider this: The official Department of Education data
shows that 44 percent of students at public universities do not complete their degrees within
six years. At community colleges, 80 percent of first-time, full-time students don't finish their
degrees on time. The official data shows that students pursuing certificates or associate's
degrees at for-profit schools are actually more likely to graduate than students at nonprofit
schools, whether public or private.

A Call for Change

University of Phoenix officials say they are working to raise graduation rates.

In November 2010, the company began requiring entering students who do not have at least 24
college credits to take a free, three-week orientation class before starting a degree program.
The idea is to make sure students know what they're getting into before they begin. The

18 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
company's goal is to weed out people who are less likely to succeed. Twenty percent of
students who go through the orientation class choose not to enroll.

Kaplan University, another for-profit school, has instituted a similar effort to try to reduce
dropouts and make sure entering students know what kind of time and effort it will take to get
a degree. Entering students can start a degree program right away, but they can withdraw
within the first five weeks without any financial obligation beyond an application fee.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin has praised Kaplan and the University of Phoenix for these new programs.
But he thinks more needs to be done, industry-wide, to improve graduation rates, lower
defaults and decrease the amount students at for-profits borrow.

He believes the government has a crucial role to play. "Congress has failed to counterbalance
investor demands for increased financial returns with requirements that hold companies
accountable to taxpayers," writes the HELP Committee in the final report of its two-year for-
profit college investigation. "Federal law and regulations currently do not align the incentives of
for-profit colleges so that the colleges succeed financially when students succeed." Harkin says
the opposite is the case -- that companies have been able to make a lot of money by enrolling
millions of students who ended up dropping out.

Harkin is calling for a number of changes to current law and the administration of federal
financial aid programs. Among the changes he would like to see:

 Tie colleges and universities' access to federal financial aid to "minimum student
outcome thresholds." Those thresholds have not been clearly defined. (The Department
of Education did put in place new regulations, effective July 1, 2012, that require for-
profit schools to show they are successfully preparing students for "gainful
employment.")
 Prohibit colleges from using federal money for marketing, advertising or recruiting.
 Require that for-profit colleges receive at least 15 percent of their revenue from sources
other than federal funds. (Current law requires that for-profits get no more than 90

19 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
 percent of revenue from federal financial aid programs, but that does not include
military or veteran student assistance programs. Critics say this is one reason for-profits
recruit veterans and students in the military; by enrolling them, for-profits can increase
the amount of revenue that doesn't count on the "90" side of the so-called "90-10"
rule.)

The for-profit industry is fighting these proposals and has found widespread support among
Republicans on Capitol Hill. Harkin, a Democrat, is not hopeful he can get anything significant
passed in the current session of Congress. But he says for-profit schools must be better
regulated.

"This is an industry that is ripe for, begging for, regulation," says Harkin.

In the Capitol Hill press conference where he released his committee's final report, Harkin
included the University of Phoenix in a group of for-profits that he says have had "very serious
shortcomings in the past but are beginning to make some changes and are open to new
thinking about how to improve student outcomes."

But he added this: "The bottom line is that a large share of the $32 billion that taxpayers
invested in [for-profit] schools in 2010 was squandered. And this cannot be allowed to
continue."

Harkin remains fundamentally skeptical about whether big corporations whose primary mission
is to make money can be trusted to do the right things for students. About the University of
Phoenix, Harkin says: "It needs to be less of a money-making machine for Wall Street and more
of an educational institution for students and taxpayers."

The government is sanctioning for-profit

colleges. What happens to the students?

20 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
n the past few years, the for-profit college sector has faced rising regulatory pressure. The U.S.
Department of Education (ED) recently investigated and sanctioned two large national for-profit chains,
Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech. As a result, both companies filed for bankruptcy, shuttering hundreds
of campuses across the country and leaving tens of thousands of students in educational limbo.
Additionally, new “Gainful Employment” (GE) regulations will likely result in many for-profit colleges
losing access to federal student aid and, potentially, further closures. So what happens to current and
prospective students when a poorly performing for-profit college closes or loses federal student aid? We
tackle this topic in a new working paper.

Financial aid and for-profit colleges

Money matters for prospective students deciding if, when, and where to go to college. To
encourage and support low-income college students, the federal government disburses huge
sums in programs such as the means-tested Pell Grant and subsidized student loans. However,
these programs are not available to students at every college. Colleges must satisfy a set of
conditions to provide their students with federal student aid.

Until the recent GE regulations, the most stringent student performance-based requirement
relied on student loan cohort default rates (CDR) – the percentage of a college’s former
students who default on their federal student loans within a set period of time. CDR regulations
were enacted in the late 1980s in response to a higher education environment that was in
many ways similar to today’s setting, in which an expansion in for-profit college enrollment
accompanied concerns about student loan default and the quality of the educational offerings
at these schools.

As shown in the figure, the share of Pell Grant recipients attending for-profit institutions grew
substantially between 1980 and 1988. The CDR regulations had a lot of bite in the 1990s, and
led to a dramatic decline in enrollment of federal aid recipients and the closure of many
colleges in the sector. Over the course of the 1990s, more than 1,200 for-profit institutions
were sanctioned.

21 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
The Impact of Sanctions on College Enrollment

Few would deny the need to protect vulnerable students from colleges where they are unlikely
to succeed. However, because for-profit colleges can provide unique pathways to college for
underserved students, past and current regulatory actions have the potential to limit access to
higher education by restricting the number of options available to students. Consequently, a
key question is whether students who would have enrolled or persisted within a sanctioned,
poorly performing for-profit college instead attend other colleges or whether these students
forego a college education altogether.

In new research, we assess the effect of federal student aid loss on two-year college enrollment
by examining the impact of CDR regulations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We look at
effects on enrollment within sanctioned schools and nearby, unsanctioned institutions that
served similar students. We focus on students receiving means-tested federal Pell Grants since
these students are most likely to be vulnerable to changes in access to financial aid.

Our findings suggest that when for-profit institutions are threatened with the loss of federal
aid, Pell Grant recipient enrollment at that institution falls, as does enrollment in other local
unsanctioned for-profit colleges. While further research is needed to clarify the reasons for this
negative spillover, it is likely that – much like today – the whole sector suffers the reputational
impacts of federal sanctions placed on individual schools.

However, we find evidence that the decline in for-profit sector enrollment following a sanction
does not reduce aggregate educational attainment – increased enrollment in local public
institutions offsets the decline in for-profit enrollment. We also find suggestive evidence that
federal student loan borrowing and default decline in the area as students shift away from
poorly performing for-profit colleges to lower-cost community colleges.

22 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Implications

In addition to possible future for-profit college closures, the new GE standards are expected to
displace many students, as the ED estimates the regulations will affect about 1,400 programs
(99 percent of which are in for-profit colleges) and 840,000 students. This loss of aid can be
particularly problematic to students at for-profit colleges who heavily rely on aid because they
are relatively more likely to come from low-income backgrounds and are less likely to expect
financial support from family. Beyond financial constraints, for-profit colleges are also
important when making policy because they disproportionately enroll students who are first-
generation college students, have served in the military, or identify as a racial or ethnic
minority.

Our findings indicate that when students at poorly performing for-profit colleges lose access to
aid, these students can and do find programs to fit their needs in the public sector. And,
concurrent to this shift of students across sectors, student loan outcomes improve. Therefore,
since average costs of attendance are lower and job market prospects are equivalent (or better)
at public colleges,[1] restricting federal student aid at poorly performing for-profit colleges can
lead to better outcomes for students and public loan programs, without substantially harming
access to higher education.

We caution, however, that capacity constraints at lower-cost competitor public institutions did
not appear to be a concern in the time period and context that we study, as public institutions
were able to accommodate students who switch sectors in response to federal sanctions. But,
states have disinvested in community colleges over time. Therefore, to ensure that students
have access to higher education during a period of heavy for-profit college regulation, we
suggest an increase in public support for community colleges and other high-performing
educational options.

23 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
[1] See for example, Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Nicholas Turner (2016). “Gainfully Employed?
Assessing the Employment and Earnings of For-Profit College Students Using Administrative
Data.” NBER Working Paper No. 22287.

THBT IMPORTANT DECISION SHOULD BE MADE BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND NOT BY

THEIR PARENTS

This House believes that important decisions about children’s health should be made by
medical professionals and not by their parents

The issue of when a child is mature enough to consent to various decisions is a complicated one
and this debate focusses on just one part; those decisions that relate to their medical well-
being. There are a number of areas where the consent of parents is required – surgery,
transplants, blood transfusion and others where the child is not able to give consent because
they are too young; circumcision being one obvious example. Many jurisdictions stress that the

24 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
child should be involved wherever possible but, the decision lies with the parents, or in their
absence, a court.

Put simply, the doctor is free to use their medical judgement in an emergency situation – an
arrival in an emergency room or accident and emergency department but where there is time
available to ask for consent it must be sought from both the young person and their parents.

For example the General Medical Council in the UK sets out;

22. You can provide medical treatment to a child or young person with their consent if they are
competent, or with the consent of a parent or the court.4 You can provide emergency
treatment without consent to save the life of, or prevent serious deterioration in the health of,
a child or young person.

23. You should involve children and young people as much as possible in decisions about their
care, even when they are not able to make decisions on their own.[i]

In many case, parents are happy to take the advice of doctors for their children, just as they
would for themselves. However, and this is the focus of this debate, there are occasions where
there is a conflict between the values or beliefs of the parent(s) and the general consensus of
medical opinion. The contention of some doctors is that it is unfair for the parents to make a
decision, that could cost the child her life, and that she may not have taken that decision later
in life.

This is further complicated by the fact that many children, especially younger children, share
the views of their parents, somewhat uncritically. Therefore, the doctor and the courts face the
question of whether the doctor is able to overrule the opinions of both, let us say, a teenager
and their parents. This debate will focus on the issue of blood transfusion for teenage children
of parents who are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs).

In 1945, a ‘blood ban’ was introduced and, since 1961, the willing acceptance of transfused
blood by an unrepentant member of the faith has been grounds for expulsion from the

25 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
religion[ii]. Clearly the issue here, for the believer is one of conscience. Their refusal of blood
relates to the group’s interpretation of Acts 15: 28, 29[iii].

Set against that is the medical reality that a blood transfusion may be vital for several life-saving
procedures and are an important part of many surgeries. The use of blood transfusions dates
from the early-nineteenth century but only came into widespread use is the 1930s (Soviet
Union) and 1940 (US and then other nations) so the position of JWs has been relatively
consistent since the inception of the technology – although recent changes have continued to
reject full blood transfusion but have accepted plasma products[iv].

The issue of whether the rejection of transfused blood is in and of itself sensible is irrelevant
both legally and in this debate.. Nobody disputes that the lack of medical action is a risk in
medical terms – and one that may lead to death. The issue for debate is whether the religious
views of the parents or the medical opinion of the doctors should have primacy in determining
the correct course of action. The debate is about who should have the right to decide, not what
that decision should be. This is considered as an issue of conscience, the implications for the
soul of the patient are not considered here.

Although this debate relates to blood transfusion and JWs – we will assume that proposition
have defined it as such – it’s principles would apply to other, similar, disputes such as whether
parents have the right to reject organs from a person of another race or reject drugs that have
been tested on animals.

The right to live to regret

Point

The primary duty placed on doctors, by society and themselves, is the preservation of life. In
pursuing this goal they use not only medicines and scalpels but, first and foremost, their
judgement. In many countries practising medics swear an oath to this effect; although these
vary greatly in detail, they are well encapsulated by the Declaration of Geneva[i], the critical

26 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
clause of which for the purpose of this debate is “The health of my patient will be my first
consideration”.

Asking doctors to take other considerations into account is not only a breach of their
professional integrity, it also poses grave risks for society. They are being asked, in this
situation, to allow the opinions of a third party take precedence over the wellbeing of their
patient. If this were a younger relative with their eye on an inheritance or a distant sibling
seeking to settle an old score, the dangers would be all too apparent. In this instance, the
motivation may be well-intentioned but it is no more reasonable. Allowing relatives to say
“well, what I think you should do is X” in defiance of medical opinion is fraught with dangers. If
a relative decided on behalf of a patient to reject chemotherapy in favour of prayer or
expressed their preference for Shamanic rituals rather than medication, why not let them. After
all their intent is just as compassionate and their reasoning as solid.

[i] There are several forms of the declaration some of them, including the modern one in most
common usage, can be found here.

Counterpoint

Proposition have made a lovely argument, except for one small detail, nobody is suggesting
prayer or ritual as a replacement for medical attention. The issue here, as defined by
proposition, is whether JW parents should be able to reject blood transfusions on behalf of
their child. No more than that; no witchcraft wards or miracle cures. This is just a consideration
of whether, given the time for discussion and consideration, the religious views of parents and,
usually, their child should be able to say that perspectives other than a strictly medical one
should be considered in addressing a complex human situation.

Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others
Point

27 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even
when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to
conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those
actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the
intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable
of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We
do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious
end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by
his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example[i].

We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against
the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to
see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die
when an available remedy could save their life.[i]

Counterpoint

The case given is quite different. The parents directly acted to cause harm to their child,
inflicting a series of violent beatings over a sustained period. Such a course of action is already
illegal and they were rightly convicted and punished. In this instance, a course of action is being
avoided with the best interest of the child uppermost in the minds of the parents.

The status of the child

Point

The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The
very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We
further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in
the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked.

In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a

particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this
28 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same
principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their
child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a
ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children
alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening.
We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to
take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also
apply here.

Counterpoint

We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very
fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the
role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their
right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have
enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children
on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to
keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it
is a matter for regret, not legislation.

Freedom of religious observance

Point

Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing
and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of
the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously
motivated decisions.

There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection
of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their
children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith[i].

29 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion
that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do
so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable
or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of
religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state
can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or
political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny.

Counterpoint

We frequently set limits not on religious beliefs but on their practices. The two determinant
used there are the possible harm to others and whether the person being harmed can be
deemed ‘capable’ in a legal sense. There can be no doubt that the decision to refuse available
medical treatment causes harm, that is beyond dispute. The issue then is whether the person
harmed, the child, can be considered capable. Legally they cannot, they cannot enter into a
contract, they cannot marry or vote, legally they are not allowed to make many decisions
because they are not full members of society until they are adults. It is worth noting that if the
child is not deemed competent to make a decision regarding their own healthcare, it is difficult
to see how their determination of their own religious choices can be assumed as authoritative.
So the child cannot make the decision and the parents actions would cause harm to the child.

In the light of this, the only remaining opinion is that of the doctor.

The burden of parental responsibility

Point

Societies recognise the importance of parenting and the enormous responsibilities that go with
it. In light of these, the parent is allowed broad discretion in determining how those
responsibilities are best exercised. It seems likely that a parent in a situation such as this is likely
to undertake a great deal more soul searching and thought than could be expected of an

30 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
external party. This is a decision that is made in good conscience and, as things stand in most
countries, within the law.

Medical experts and others may well have opinions, frequently strongly held, but they are just
that – opinions. The very fact that this issue has come to court, been heard and judges have
reached differing decisions demonstrates that this is not an argument against fact. The opinions
of parents are often supported by expert and legal authority. The parents can be expected to
consider these opinions among many but must be left free to act in what they believe is the
best interest of the child.

Counterpoint

Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their
child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm,
we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No
matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send
them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in
sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain
age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care
entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.

The division between the personal and social spheres

Point

The law is a cumbersome tool to use in matters that relate to family life; this can be seen in the
reluctance to legislate too much in this area. In those areas that require massive social
interaction and agreement, such as education, there is a need for legislation but even that
frequently proves to be controversial and many parents take the opportunity to opt out. This is
particularly true in the moral, ethical and religious education of children as it is recognised,
both implicitly and explicitly that this is a matter for the family.

31 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
How then is this different? That there are repercussions to the decisions individuals make
regarding their religious beliefs is beyond question but we still leave them free to make them –
the pacifist may go to prison but cannot be compelled to fight.

The same principle applies here; decisions based on deep religious conviction are a matter for
the individual or, in this case, their family. The views of the family are respected in the choice of
whether to prolong the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state, regardless of medical
opinion about the individual case. Many consider PVS to be “more dead than dead”.[i] Despite
this religious views on the matter, which often compare ‘pulling the plug’ to assisting suicide,
are given a level of respect that cannot be justified by the available medical evidence. Although
inverted, approaching the issue of the relationship between faith and death from the opposite
angle – keeping the dead ‘alive’ rather than allowing the living to die – the same level of respect
for the beliefs involved would seem to apply.

Counterpoint

Society does intervene in the private sphere to prevent harm. Domestic abuse is simply the
most obvious example but parents are also responsible in most societies for ensuring their
children receive an education in accordance with the law. If a parent were to deny their
children food when it was available, it would be neglect. If they were to deny them shelter and
protection when available, it would be neglect or abuse. It is difficult to see how denying them
healthcare, when available, would not fall into the same category.

THBT IMPORTANT DECISION SHOULD BE MADE BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND NOT BY

THEIR PARENTS

Pro

I personally believe that children's (child being under 21) health decisions (being defined as
any medical procedure or action) should be made by medical professionals (being defined
as liscenced doctors in the concerned field, generally to pediatricitons), not by the
parents(parents being the legal guardians of the child).

32 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Please accept my definitions for what they are, since I am interested in debating the
resolution, not its interpretations. Also, I would enjoy constructive critisicm, for although I
have debate experience, this is my first tiime using this site.

Con

At first glance your proposal appeared reasonable enough as there are plenty of
incompetent parents. Take for example, Christian Scientists, who refuse medical treatment
in hopes that a being in the sky should will away any ailments or trauma. Taking this into
account, it seems that having licensed professionals making the most educated decisions
for our youth would be a great idea, and in a perfect world it is. Unfortunately this is not a
perfect world. It is a world where many people cant afford, or get time off of work, for
certain procedures or treatments. It is a world where doctors would prefer more often
than not to prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them. Its rare
to find any behind the counter medication without a newspaper sized list of possible side
affects and complications. It isn't hard to see why some people would prefer less
"mainstream" treatments. Do I really need to stuff adderall down little Billy's throat
because hes dozing off in class? No. Many "professionals" however, would disagree. While
there are plenty of idiots raising their children, there are plenty more parents doing a
perfectly fine job. And while doctors do have a far greater knowledge in medicine, they do
not necessarily know what is best for the worlds kids.

Pro

First, I will refute my opponent's argument before continuing on to state my contentions.

The opposition claims that because doctors are interested only in monetary gain, decisions
made by doctors would be inferior to the parents'. First of all, the opposition makes the
assumption that all doctors are only interested in money. Although this may be true in
some circumstances, doctors rely on patients for business. If parents did not agree with the

33 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
doctors' diagnosis, the patients would not be patronizing with that doctor, in effect putting
that doctor out of business. Also, remember that the doctor must take the Hippocratic
oath.
Doctor's sole intentions are NOT to create a profit by giving their patients treatments, nor
to extort them. Doctors are sworn to an oath in which they dedicate themselves to saving
lives. Sexual intercourse does not require a such oath is the only requirement to be a
parent. Despite this, not all parents lack qualifications. Some are indeed loving, caring, and
tried for many years to conceive. This may seem like benefit to their children's health, but
when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be enough.
No parent wishes for their child to undergo invasive surgery even though, without it their
child will not survive. Doctors may seem to be cold professionals, and that is exactly what
they are, for better and for worse.

Con

It seems that your entire post revolves around me apparently saying that doctors are only
interested in monetary gain. NOT ONCE did i say that, or even imply that. I'm assuming,
however, that you must be referring to "doctors would prefer more often than not to
prescribe medication for ailments witch don't necessarily require them" This is not in
anyway saying doctors are "interested only in monetary gain", but rather pointing out that
doctors very commonly refer patients medication for problems such as depression, ADD,
ADHD, or anxiety, that while in some cases are necessary, in many they are not. And
because of this, the idea of forcing parents to listen to doctors is absurd. I would never try
to imply that all doctors are malicious money hungry liars.

"but when their child's condition becomes serious, a bowl of chicken soup may not be
enough." You seem to be relying on an all or noting basis, as if this argument is a choice
between forcing obedience to doctors, or not having doctors. You are right, bowl of soup
wont always be enough. And when it isn't, parents in almost all cases take there kids to the
doctor.

34 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
I understand that in some cases it would be better to force parents to listen to their doctor,
however you must admit that the majority of parents do listen to the doctor, and when
they don't their reasons are usually justified. While i do see whee you are coming from, the
benefits of this medical dictatorship, if you will, are far outweighed by the number of
problems and the sheer amount outrage it would certainly cause.

Pro

Yes, I assumed that the reason why you claimed that doctors prescribe unnecessary drugs
is for their own benefit, yet if you intend to say that they just prescribe these drugs in
general, then I apologize. Yet this enforces my case, for if a medical professional with at
least 8 years of schooling on his practice fails to correctly diagnosis the patient, then the
parents certainly will not! You use terms like "usually," yet this means that you admit that
there is room for error. In many cases, parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept
their childrens' ailments, which will lead to harm, and possible death.
You also say that when a parent rejects a doctor's prescription, it is "usually" justified.
Again, there is an admission to error. Remember the case of denial brought up in the
previous paragraph. What if parents disagree over a medical decission? what of children in
an orphanage with no real mother or father (orphanages may skimp on operations or
procedures due to lack of connection) ? And what of parents who have in the past abused
their children and are afraid of this discovery? These are just some cases in which a
stalemate occurs, and the child in question suffers unnessesarily.
Also, remember my argument about an ou-of-practice doctor. You claim that parents who
reject doctor's advice are "usually justified." Therefore, any doctor giving quack advice
would be put out of business and otherwise gain a bad reputation for parents' tendencies
to make the right decision about their children.
One last thing. Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning the children's
healthcare (unless they themselves are trained professionals), and would therefore want

35 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
the least painful, least intrusive, and consequently, not always the most affective decision.
An example: a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy due to
their emotional attatchment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most efficient
choice.-

Con

You are correct in saying i did continually use the word "usually" as I try to refrain from
bold blanket statements such as " Parents are unable to look far into the future concerning
the children's healthcare." simply untrue. You continue to assert a sort of undertone, that
all parents are completely incompetent. Another example of this being "In many cases,
parents enter a state of denial, and refuse to accept their childrens' ailments, which will
lead to harm, and possible death." This is a very bold and foolish guess, and I am sure you
would agree. It would take a parent with a serious mental condition to just deny that their
bedridden child coughing blood is completely fine.

You go on to say that "a child diagnosed with lung cancer would send parents into a frenzy
due to their emotional attachment, while a doctor could detatchedly make the most
efficient choice" So the point that you are making is that when a child is diagnosed with a
sort of terminal illness, their parents are so distraught that they transform into a primal
idiot incapable of making rational decisions. If not I don't see why a parent would not go to
extreme lengths to get their child help. It is a very rare occurrence, if at all, that parents
whose children are diagnosed with cancer simply ignore it and refuse them treatment, and
that seems to be one of the main points of your last round.

"you admit that there is room for error." Yes I do admit that there is an insignificant
fraction of parents who make ridiculous medical decisions, however the mistakes of such a
small number of incompetent people is not enough basis for a national policy that forces
parents to listen to doctors. Not anywhere near it. This is a matter of simply weighing the

36 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
pros and cons. In all honesty the pro's are extremely scarce while it seems the cons have
broken the scale.

THBT IMPORTANT DECISION SHOULD BE MADE BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND NOT BY

THEIR PARENTS

The final decision is made by the parents, who are responsible for the child. The physician should
educate the parents to the best of his/her ability, but legally the physician cannot make the decision. All
decisions must be made by the responsible legal party.

The following is a short story I have written but not published that speaks to the above question.

The Dilemma

Based on a true story

An exhausted Joel Merlin, M.D., reached for three aspirins from the bottle he borrowed from the
intensive care nurse. Downing them with water, he tried to assuage his splitting headache. He wasn’t
sure when his problem started, whether 10 hours or six months ago.

With a busy Obstetric and Gynecology practice in Phoenix, Arizona, stress was not foreign to him. You
could say it was an every day occurrence - but not like this.

Board Certified and empathetic, he was an excellent physician who cared about his patients. He had a
nice family and a busy practice, and things were going well. Then came Jenny.

Jenny Bolin was a pretty, 26 year old woman, pregnant for the first time. Always pleasant, she was the
perfect patient. She even took the doctors advice, which is rare in today’s know-it-all world. Except for
one thing. Jenny was a Jehovah’s witness.

This might not seem like much of a problem, but for an Ob/Gyn doctor was a bomb waiting to explode.
Many physicians in the Phoenix area would refuse to accept a pregnant patient who espoused this
religion. Not that there is anything wrong with being a Jehovah’s witness, but anyone with any
knowledge of problems occurring in pregnancy realizes that there can be loss of blood - sometimes a lot
of it. And Jehovah’s witnesses refuse blood transfusions.

37 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
So 10 hours ago Jenny went into labor. Her prenatal care was routine. She even took her vitamins as
prescribed, limited her weight gain, and for all intents and purposes was the ideal patient, a pleasure to
deal with. After a normal period of labor, Joel had delivered a healthy baby boy. Everyone was happy.
The loving family and friends gathered around, cooing over Jenny and the baby. It was 8PM.

Arriving home, Joel was thankful to end another day, which began with a 7:30 AM hysterectomy,
followed by a busy day in the office. When the nurse called to say Jenny was in labor and had progressed
rapidly, he wrapped up his office and headed to the hospital. Relief did not last long, and ended when
the recovery room nurse in labor and delivery called and said, “Jenny doesn’t look right”. Now Joel was
not a stickler for scientific information, but he trusted the hospital nurses and their intuition. He ordered
routine blood work stat, and asked for vital signs, including pulse and blood pressure every 15 minutes.
He also tried to pump the nurses for more information than “just not looking right.” Originally being
from New Jersey, he could not resist a friendly little dig to the nurse about her diagnosis. In New Jersey,
if you did not kid people you worked with, it usually meant you did not like them.

The second call came about 30 minutes later. Jenny’s blood hemoglobin was 8 gms. Normal for that lab
was 12-14 gms. And her pulse was 120. Blood pressure was also low at 90/60.

So Joel headed to the hospital. On examination, Jenny had an acute abdomen, indicative of intra-
abdominal bleeding. With the drop in hemoglobin, emergency surgery was advised, and he said so.
Jenny’s family saw how pale and sweaty she had become, and were obviously concerned. Unfortunately,
her pastor was also at the bedside.

Joel held a conference with the family and pastor, who insisted on being present. He said he advised
immediate surgery to find the cause of the bleeding. In the field of Ob/Gyn this was an unusual but not
uncommon problem, and usually easily remedied by the surgery. But a blood transfusion, probably
several, were necessary.

The family refused. Jenny, persuaded by the family and pastor, also refused. They argued that “blood
replacement products” like glucose and saline could be used. But Joel knew that would not work, given
the rapid change in Jenny’s vital signs and dropping blood count.

A little history: in 1900, the infant mortality was 33%. And maternal mortality (death of the mother) was
8%. Unbelievable. But in today’s modern medicine a maternal mortality is almost unheard of. And a law

38 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
suit against the physician and hospital is almost guaranteed. So Joel was facing the death of a patient, a
law suit, a hospital board inquiry, and just a load of stress that would affect his family, his practice and
him for years. And did I mention the death of a patient he cared for. So like Vinny in the movie “My
Cousin Vinny” said, “Just how much more s--- can they pile on.”

The nurses, as per hospital procedure, notified the nursing supervisor, who notified the hospital
administrator, who notified the hospital lawyer, who notified a judge. Discussions flew back and forth as
to what to do, while Joel tried to control the medical situation (although he was also aware of what was
happening behind the scenes). Jenny’s pulse was getting rapid and thready, blood pressure was
dropping, and the hemoglobin level had reached six grams. He again had a conference with the family
and Jenny, and the ever-present pastor. Despite his pleas to give the blood transfusions so he could
operate, they refused. It was 2 AM.

The lawyer came in, met with Joel, and frankly told him, “If you give her blood against her advice and
without permission, you will be sued. And if you don’t give her blood and she dies, you will be sued.”
Joel’s only recourse was aspirin, and it wasn’t helping. Not much to fight with, when surgery could save
her.

The hemoglobin began to drop further; when it reached 2 gms, Joel made a decision to operate. He just
could not watch a patient die, knowing he could save her. So he told the OR, which was on standby,
waiting and following the proceedings expectantly, to get ready. They were bringing Jenny over for
surgery.

However, Joel’s headache was not over. The anesthesiologist, seeing the hemoglobin of 2 gms, refused
to put her to sleep. His position was without blood she most likely would die, and he would not risk a
law suit when the situation was readily fixed with blood transfusions.

A defeated Joel visited with the family and told them Jenny most likely was going to die without the
blood. The pastor, however, was adamant she not receive a blood transfusion.

Racking his brain and praying for an idea, it suddenly came to him. He told the nurse to bring Jenny’s
baby in to see her. While she was holding him, he said to her, “I just wanted to let you hold your baby
once before you die.”

Her response was brief. “Where do I sign.”

39 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Debate Log 1-THBT important decisions about children’s health should be made by
medical professionals and not by their parents.

1. Case analysis

(1). “Important decisions about children’s health”: when the decision to undergo a medical
treatment is of life-or-death to the children.

(2). What is status quo?

Parents get to make decisions on behalf of their children.

– Concept: parental autonomy (legal)

“Parental-Autonomy Doctrine refers to a principle that parents have fundamental right to raise
his or her child and to make all decisions concerning that child free from governmental
intervention, unless the child’s health and welfare are jeopardized by the parent’s decisions. The
state can interfere with the parents right if public health, welfare, safety, and order are
threatened by the parent’s decisions. This principle was first recognized in the case Meyer v.
Neb., 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923)wherein the court held that the State cannot, under the guise of
exercising its police power, interfere with guaranteed liberty interests.”
(http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parental-autonomy-doctrine/)

(3). What’s wrong with the status quo? What’s this motion’s intention? Case setup.

This motion is about MINORITY CASES. It’s set in a specific situation, with a reference to
cases like Jehovah’s Witness who refuse blood transfusion which directly conflicts modern
medicine.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distributing literature
such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and refusing military service and blood transfusions.

40 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
.. Jehovah’s Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence
of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

“Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in “a life-
or-death situation. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical
procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the Watch Tower Society provides information
about current non-blood medical procedures.” (Wikipedia)

Should polling be banned before an election?

The political implications of the polling errors at the 2015 general election were quite profound.

The six-week campaign was dominated by 92 voting intention polls, very few of which came
anywhere near the actual outcome of a Conservative victory.

The fact that most polls suggested a hung parliament shaped the entire campaign.

Detailed interrogation of party policies took a back seat to endless discussion about who would
go into coalition with whom.

And the final weeks before polling day were so dominated by talk about the SNP that one could
have been forgiven for thinking it was a Holyrood election rather than one for Westminster.

Should we cut through all this and simply ban the publication of opinion polls during election
campaigns?

Pollsters object that, in the event of a ban, privately commissioned polls would be commissioned
and their findings published abroad and then reported in the UK media. It would be virtually
impossible to suppress them in this age of the internet.

A reasonable point: but does it invalidate the argument that election polls should be banned?

41 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
A 2012 international study conducted by the University of Hong Kong received replies from 83
countries when asked whether they operated any blackout period for polls during election
campaigns.

Of these, 38 countries reported bans on the publication of pre-election polls in one form or
another.

The list included Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Mexico, Norway, Poland and Venezuela. In
France, election polls are banned on polling day and the day before.

It is difficult to characterise the list as comprising countries where democracy is fragile and
where authoritarian regimes prevail.

So, many mature democracies find no problem with restricting pre-election polls.

More debate

Would our own politics be any the poorer if such a ban were introduced?

In the absence of obsessive interest in the party horse race, might we discuss important subjects
such as what the next government proposes to do for five years: the state of the economy,
housing, the environment, schools and universities and the National Health Service?

I find the prospect very enticing.

However, if we ban the polls we could also lose the information they provide that is over and
beyond simple voting intention, not least the priorities expressed by potential voters.

Polls contain very rich data about voter attitudes that the media often does not report.

But that suggests the media should sort itself out rather than Parliament legislating to cut off the
supply.

There is also the argument that polls, with all their shortcomings, are far better than the
alternatives we would be left with in the event of their being banned.

42 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Would our news-hungry media fill the gap with leaks of "private" polls commissioned by
political parties, ostensibly for their own use?

Or worse still, would every election campaign be splattered with reports of "sensational" canvass
returns released by parties showing that they were sweeping the country in this election?

Image copyright Reuters

Rumour and spin do not appear to be particularly attractive alternatives to opinion polls.

For my part, I am not persuaded that polls should be banned during election campaigns.

However, I think the pollsters are on a short leash: their dreadful performance in 2015 and the
damaging role they played in misdirecting the entire six weeks of the campaign have shaken
public confidence quite severely.

If they cannot restore that public confidence quickly they will find themselves bereft of friends
and supporters should the appetite grow for curtailing their activities during crucial election
campaigns.

This house believes that opinion polls harm the democratic process.

The relationship between the media and democracy is controversial. The media always claim
they just “inform the public” whilst critics claim they actually shape public opinion, thereby
“controlling” democracy. One possible way in which this happens is through opinion polls. In an
opinion poll, an organization, such as a political party, a research company or a media company,
questions a representative panel of citizens (usually about 1000) about their opinions on a
political subject or about candidates. Very often polls ask people how they would vote if there
were an election today, and the media uses the results to project the share of the national vote
that different parties would achieve. Such polls are very common in the period of an election
campaign, when five or more different surveys may be published in a week, and the results are
picked over in detail by political commentators.

43 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Different countries take different attitudes to the role of opinion polls in a democracy. Many
impose no limitations on the publication of polls in the media, but some, including France, South
Korea, Mexico and Taiwan, ban the publication of opinion polls in the days running up to a
national election. In France, for example, the media cannot publish opinion polls of voting
intention in the week before each round of national voting.[1] The issue of opinion polls is
particularly controversial in India where the Election Commission used to ban the publication of
opinion polls in the days before and during national elections which are conducted over a period
of some twenty days in five regional days of voting. In 1999, the Indian Supreme Court
overturned this rule following a challenge brought by a newspaper.[2] However, today the main
political parties have joined with the Election Commission in an attempt to reintroduce the
ban.[3] A similar situation exists in Canada where restrictions on the publication of opinion polls
were overturned in its Supreme Court in 1998.[4]
It might be useful to focus the debate by determining what type of opinion polls are harming the
democratic process: opinion polls about general subjects, polls projecting the outcome of
elections before election-day, or exit-polls (which ask actual voters how they have cast their
ballot) on election-day. There could be a variety of choices for a particular plan and the debate
which follows only offers one possible method. Likewise, the debate could occur primarily at
the value level addressing the general influence of opinion polls on the democratic process. The
democratic process could include a variety of ways that citizens participate or are informed prior
to the selection of policies and candidates. In particular, harm to the democratic process should
be addressed with some specificity if it is argued that harm occurs. With the proliferation of
public messages and the increased use of various media to carry those messages, the relationship
of public opinion polls to democratic dialogue challenges the exploration of voter choices and
the information on which those choices are made.

Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate

Point

In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins
office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with
the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus

44 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of
opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is
likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.

Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter
behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a
certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel
“outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue.
Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a
foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids
opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]

Counterpoint

Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not
sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls
suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public
opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of
debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate,
this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of
dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.

The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of
numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or
candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change
their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings
regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on
opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle.
Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls.
We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will
significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through
opinion polls has not been established.

45 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are
made.

Point

Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the
organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by
selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats
than republicans,[1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a
particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support
spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’.[2] This information can generate false information
and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the
research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls
seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards
deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting
the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation.
One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the
election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less
likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would
occur.[3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which
voters can make good decisions.

Counterpoint

The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable
information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be
manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The
opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently
misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is
as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is
often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because
of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the

46 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of
these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in
conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply
abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of
audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its
potential for misuse.

Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.

Point

Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is
predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had
that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon
inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour
victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that
many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives
tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of
sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’.[1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party,
such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out
without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters
didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion
polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.

Counterpoint

The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur.
However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice
to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political
process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic
method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended
outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than

47 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur
whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a
legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.

Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.

Point

This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making
process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at
a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen
behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of
the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls.
There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased
information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice.
Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed
by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2
weeks prior to an election.

Counterpoint

The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election.
However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls
that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior
opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already
flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to
conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic
voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of
expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections
should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for
uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to
present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting

48 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election
dialogue.

Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to
substantive issues.

Point

When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to
an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal
philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters
become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when
changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data,
a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a
person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data
would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin
to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better
democratic discussion.

Counterpoint

Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on
substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political
campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign
through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And
campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.

And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without
opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue.
There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate
events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the
development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes
for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one

49 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is
also critical to better democratic discussion.

Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected

Point

They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an
exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the
marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be
heard.

Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other
restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication
of horoscopes during the election period.

Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also
ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud
and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In
fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either
undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing
opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a
domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of
public expression.

Counterpoint

The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of
expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist.
There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects
of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic
society.

50 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible
consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another
is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.

Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since
as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally
untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the
claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject
support for restrictions to opinion polls.

Citizens should be respected for their opinions

Point

Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be
critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to
publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific
questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.

Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms.
There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion
polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least
valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas
the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox
News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive
more widespread recognition.

A well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can
accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage
points.[1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of

51 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to
base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion
polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly
as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking
individuals.

Counterpoint

Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this
issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as
well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which
provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced
to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’
attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and
citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.

Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this
possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this
vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the
problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information
for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved;
however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether
they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.

Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.
Point

It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain
criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to
astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or
appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one
might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of
her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.

52 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Counterpoint

There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for
making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This
position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of
course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value
of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice.
The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable
to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do
not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for
voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that
the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.

Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.

Point

The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is
nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are
not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that
government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post
system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to
inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may
sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls
can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven
day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go
through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This
frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there
may well have been no need.[1]

Counterpoint

53 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact
that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the
people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned.
Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous.
Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or
election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could
achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that
mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of
citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.

Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.

Point

They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the
election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often
provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better
speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more
specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future
performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win
the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to
the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.

Counterpoint

It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians
and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however
would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present
only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of
support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter
holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide
useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering

54 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes
and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published
audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the
candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be
unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep
the politicians informed.[1]

The Big Question: Should the media stop reporting the suicides in and around
Bridgend?

Why are we asking this now?

Grieving parents of the 17 young people from the south Wales town who have taken their lives
in the past 13 months have begun blaming media coverage for fuelling the deaths. Despite
official denials of a link between the suicides, some papers have reported claims that social
networking websites have romanticised the deaths, thereby encouraging others. Papers have
speculated about an "internet cult", and labelled Bridgend the "death town".

Who is blaming the media?

Sharon Pritchard , mother of 15-year-old Nathaniel Pritchard, who apparently killed himself
earlier this month, described how she had been hounded by reporters wanting pictures and details
of her son. "[The media] have glamorised ways of taking your life as a way of getting attention

55 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
without fully realising the tragic consequences," she said. "Media coverage put the idea into
Nathaniel's head. We never believed his death was linked to other deaths and never believed
there was an internet pact. We are certain it never had anything to do with living in Bridgend."

Is she alone?

By no means. Assistant chief constable Dave Morris, who is leading a review of the deaths, said
this week that media reporting was influencing young people in the town. "I have noticed an
increase in sensationalist reporting and the fact that Bridgend is becoming stigmatised. The link
between the deaths isn't the internet – it is the way the media is reporting the news." His view
was backed by Madeleine Moon, Labour MP for Bridgend. "The media is part of the problem,
and I ask them to be part of the solution," she said. "Give friends and families the space they
need."

Why is there such concern about the reporting?

Because suicide is catching – especially among the young. The copycat suicide is a well-known
phenomenon, described in scores of academic studies. It is known in medical circles as the
Werther effect, after Goethe's novel of 1774, The Sorrows of Young Werther, in which a young
artist shoots himself after an ill-fated love affair. Its publication triggered a series of suicides by
the same method across Europe which led to its being banned in some countries.

The Centre for Suicide Research at Oxford University has reviewed 90 international studies
assessing the media portrayal of suicide, 30 of which examined the impact of newspaper reports.
In 21 cases there was evidence that the reports led to an increase in suicides. The biggest risk
comes from reports that describe the method of suicide. Victims are also attracted by the
prospect of fame, however brief, when their deaths are reported.

Research shows that copycat victims tend to come from similar backgrounds and are at greatest
risk if they know other victims. Studies have even shown a dose-response relationship between
the intensity of reporting and the number of suicides that follow. Celebrity suicides, such as that
of Kurt Cobain in 1994, are the worst for triggering clusters – it has been estimated that they are
14 times more likely to provoke copycat deaths than are the suicides of unknown people.

56 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Is there a code of practice governing reporting of suicide?

Yes. The Press Complaints Commission's editors' code contains detailed guidance on taste and
decency, on avoiding the publication of gratuitous pictures or material and on intrusion into grief
and shock. In June 2006, the guidance was tightened to include a new sub-clause, reading:
"When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used."
The change was made in response to evidence from the Samaritans and other groups about the
triggers for copycat suicides.

Has the code been observed?

Not entirely. In October 2007, the Wigan Evening Post was censured by the PCC for its coverage
of the death of a teacher who had electrocuted himself. The PCC ruled that the paper's report of
the death had contained "too much detail", and there was "a danger that sufficient information
was included to spell out to others how to carry out such a suicide." The Samaritans saw this as a
positive move, indicating that the PCC was determined to enforce more sensitive reporting.

Sir Christopher Meyer, chairman of the PCC, this week urged the public to report articles about
the Bridgend suicides "which in their view are either insensitive or which provide such excessive
detail". Papyrus, the charity for the prevention of young suicides, criticised coverage for
featuring "sensationalist headlines, and big pictures often of an attractive girl, that glamorised
their suicide".

Is anyone calling for a ban on reporting the Bridgend suicides?

Yes. On 5 February, Papyrus demanded an end to media coverage of the tragedy. Anne Parry,
the chairwoman, said: "We believe there is nothing further to be gained [from media coverage].
We are seriously concerned any more media coverage would exacerbate the current state of
affairs with disastrous results. At worst it could lead to further suicide attempts. We are asking
media please do not draw further attention to this situation."

Yesterday, Ms Parry said her aim at the time had been to "defuse the media roller coaster" which
"risked whipping up a state of hysteria" among the public. "We needed a period of calm," she

57 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
said. But she added that "important issues have been raised, not least the fact that the media are
actively adjudicating themselves. Papyrus hopes the current discussion will lead to more
sensitive reporting of suicide in the future."

Did other charities support the call?

No. The Samaritans rejected the demands as impractical and unhelpful. "We need responsible
reporting rather than no reporting," a spokesperson said. Although some reporting had been
insensitive and sensationalist, there had been positive benefits, she said. "Putting suicide in the
spotlight helps focus attention and resources on it, and greater understanding of its complexity
helps to destigmatise it."

How can copycat suicides be reduced?

The Samaritans says suicides should not be romanticised, permanent memorials should be
discouraged, suicide notes should not be disclosed and excessive detail should be avoided.
Sensitive reporting can help by dispelling common misconceptions about suicide, such as that
people who attempt to take their own lives are beyond help or, conversely, need not be taken
seriously. Someone who makes a cry for help should never be ignored.

Is the press making the tragedy worse?

Yes...

* There is evidence that media coverage can promote copycat suicides, especially in young
people

* Grieving parents and relatives are being hounded by reporters, adding to their distress

* The town of Bridgend is being stigmatised for its poor quality of life and high risks posed to
the young

No...

58 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
* The disturbing number of suicides among young people in the town demands sensitive
investigation and honest comment

* The extensive media interest means that attention and resources are focused on the problem

* Publicity about suicide helps to dispel misconceptions and to encourage those in distress to
seek help

Suicide by news subjects shouldn’t be pinned on

media, experts say

The investigative profile of preacher-turned-politician Dan Johnson was devastating.

Johnson called himself the Pope, and in a five-day series called The Pope’s Long Con based on a
seven-month investigation and more than 100 interviews, the Kentucky Center for Investigative
Reporting described how Johnson, a recently elected Republican state lawmaker, had lied about
his background, burned his car—and possibly his church—for insurance money, and allegedly
molested a 17-year-old girl during a sleepover.

Read more: ‘Any journalist’s nightmare’: The Pope’s Long Con unraveled a web of lies,
with tragic consequences

After three installments were broadcast on an affiliated public radio station, WFPL, Johnson
drove to a bridge south of Louisville and shot himself. In a suicide note posted on Facebook,
Johnson denied the allegations. His widow blamed the media for his death. And one listener who
commented on the station’s website called KyCIR “evil” and attributed the death to its
“unwarranted and sustained political attack.”

But most readers and listeners who commented defended the report, noting it was meticulously
documented and sourced. And experts on suicide and journalistic ethics say that suicide is so
rare, so unpredictable, and so often caused by multiple factors that it cannot—and should not—
be blamed on news coverage.

59 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
“Suicide is never caused by one thing,” said Julie Cerel, president of the American Association
of Suicidology. A licensed clinical psychologist and professor in University of Kentucky’s
College of Social Work, Cerel said “many people are accused of misconduct but don’t take their
own lives,” just as “a lot of kids are bullied but very few die of suicide.”

Samuel Freedman, a religion columnist at The New York Times and a professor at Columbia
University’s School of Journalism, said reporters and editors should weigh the potential harm of
stories on subjects but that is not “an argument for self-censoring.” The media must consider the
public harm of not publishing, he said, such as allowing “an alleged sexual predator” to “keep
trusted positions in a church or state government.”

Kathleen Culver, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at University of Wisconsin, noted
that KyCIR tried to reach out to the subject to allow him to speak for himself.

The death of news subjects by suicide is not common, but it is hardly unprecedented.

The most famous instance came in 1965, after editors at The New York Times received a tip that
the state grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, a former top officer in the American Nazi Party, not
only was Jewish but had been raised in an Orthodox home and bar mitzvahed. The Times sent a
reporter to confront Dan Burros about his bizarre background and he vowed to kill the reporter,
and possibly himself, if it disclosed his secret.

“I’ll be ruined,” he said. “This is all I’ve got to live for.”

Under the headline, “State Klan Leader Hides Secret of Jewish Origin,” the Times published the
story, one of the most famous in its history, on the front page on October 31, 1965. Later the
same day, Burros fatally shot himself in the head and chest.

ICYMI: The New York Times begins 2018 on a sour note

The newspaper received angry letters questioning the wisdom of invading Burros’s privacy and
exposing an obviously sick person. Even some staff members in the newsroom felt the paper
may have gone too far, given that Burros was merely an oddball rather than a major public
figure, Gay Talese wrote in his history of the Times, The Kingdom and the Power.

60 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
It’s sad when someone commits suicide, but the job of journalists is to try to ascertain the truth
of the situation and not primarily engage in considering the consequences before we write.

But others said the story, which later inspired a book by Times editors Arthur Gelb and A.M.
Rosenthal, One More Victim, as well as a movie, The Believer, starring Ryan Gosling, performed
a public service in focusing attention on a fanatic with the potential for causing public harm.

Experts say it is impossible for journalists to predict the consequences of their work. “We can’t
see around corners,” said Edward Wasserman, dean of the California-Berkeley Graduate School
of Journalism. Still, Wasserman, a former editor at the Miami Herald and the Casper, Wyoming
Star-Tribune, said some discoveries don’t rise to the level of public significance and are “merely
interesting or titillating,” making it “callous and cruel” to publish them.

For example, in 2006 before a “sweeps week,” KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh aired a series of
promotions for a report on a local minister suggesting he was involved in improper behavior; the
promos showed a reporter confronting the pastor about his visits to an adult bookstore. He went
to a motel and killed himself. Angry viewers accused the station of “assassinating” the preacher,
according to an editorial column in the Post-Gazette, which said TV stations ought to take “a
contemplative look at the impact salacious, fear-mongering sweeps-month promos and reports
can have.” The station’s general manager issued a statement expressing condolences; he said the
station never aired the story because it had received advance word from somebody close to the
minister that he was considering harming himself.

In 1998, the owner of a martial arts studio in Charlottesville, Virginia, killed himself after a local
news outlet, C-Ville Weekly, reported that a two-way mirror had been installed in the women’s
room there. A reporter had contacted the owner, who said he hadn’t known the mirror could be
viewed from the other side, and that planned to alert authorities. Instead, he drove to a wooded
park and stabbed himself to death. In a suicide note, he denied wrongdoing. While some of his
former students angrily questioned whether they had been spied on, others said the owner had
been treated unjustly by the media and that the pressure drove him to take his own life.

Author Orville Schell, who preceded Wasserman as Berkeley’ dean, told The Washington Post at
the time that the reporter acted responsibly. “It’s sad when someone commits suicide, but the job

61 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
of journalists is to try to ascertain the truth of the situation and not primarily engage in
considering the consequences before we write,” he said. “That really is the job of policymakers
and managers.”

Two years earlier, the Navy’s highest-ranking officer, Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, committed
suicide shortly after he was told of an impending magazine article suggesting that he wore two
Vietnam War combat decorations that he had not earned. Newsweek had requested an interview
earlier in the day. Defense Department and Navy colleagues said that while the magazine article
may have pushed the admiral over the edge, he had been under great stress at the Navy, which
has been overwhelmed with a cheating scandal at the Naval Academy and the sexual assault of
dozens of women at a convention of naval aviators.

Other stories have ended in tragedy, despite precautions taken by news organizations.

In 2012, before the Tampa Bay Times published a story about a 39-year-old woman who suffered
from a rare, debilitating condition called “persistent genital arousal disorder,” editors allowed the
reporter call her in advance and read her the story word for word because it was so sensitive. In
an email before it ran, Gretchen Molannen thanked the reporter for doing the piece. “I am
flattered that you cared so much to want to help,” she said. “I just hope this will educate people
that this is serious and really exists, and that other women who are suffering in silence will now
have the courage to talk to a doctor about it.” But the day after publication, she committed
suicide. One angry reader wrote that the Times had “blood on its hands,” while another said the
story did not belong in a mainstream newspaper.”

Molannen, though, had told the reporter that her condition was so debilitating that she had
attempted suicide at least three times during the year before the story ran. Then-Managing Editor
Mike Wilson issued a statement that said, “We can’t know all of the complex factors that led
Gretchen to the awful choice she made. But we hope and believe that her story will help other
men and women who quietly suffer from similar conditions.”

Media Should Not Sensationalize Suicide

62 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
The World Health Organization reports about 800,000 people commit suicide every year. To
mark this year’s World Suicide Prevention Day (September 10), WHO is stressing the important
role the media can play in stopping people from taking their own lives.

Worldwide, every 40 seconds, someone commits suicide. The World Health Organization reports
for every suicide, 20 others, mainly young people, attempt to take their own lives. WHO says
suicide is the second leading cause of death among 15 to 29 year olds.

It finds most suicides, more than 78 percent, occur in low-and middle-income countries and risk
factors include mental disorders, particularly depression and anxiety resulting from alcohol use.

WHO cites growing evidence that the media can play a significant role in preventing suicide by
reporting responsibly on these tragedies.

Scientist in WHO’s department of mental health and substance abuse, Alexandra Fleischmann
tells VOA people are often reluctant to talk about suicide because of the stigma attached. She
says journalists can help to overcome this taboo by encouraging people to seek help and to speak
openly about their distress.

“It is also important to stress that the encouragement to work with the media and not just to talk
about the don’ts. Don’t put it in the headlines," she said. "Don’t put the picture of the person who
died. Don’t sensationalize it. Don’t glamorize it.”

WHO warns irresponsible reporting of this sort often can trigger copycat suicides or increase the
risk.

The UN health agency reports the most common methods of suicide are self-poisoning with
pesticide and firearms. It says many of these deaths could be prevented by restricting access to
these means.

In the case of suicide: to publish, or not to

publish?
63 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Posted on August 5, 2011 by Rebecca Sulock

The man jumped off the bridge on Aug. 2. He drove his car to the side of eastbound Interstate
240 and leaped to his death, landing on Emma Road below, according to police. Should Xpress
have published news of the incident with his name?

We’ve been wrestling with this question for a couple of days. For many years, newspapers have
declined to publish the names of most suicide victims. Why is that? Edward Wasserman
discussed the issue in a blog last year, and what he says here, I think is particularly appropriate:

For the journalist a suicide story is always trouble. That’s partly because it’s painful and
intrusive. And it’s partly because there’s an irreducible mystery at its core — why? — and the
only person who might unlock that mystery, if questioned skillfully enough, is gone.

So you turn to the survivors. And while a reporter normally believes that with proximity comes
credibility, that the nearer people are to the news the more valuable they are as sources, that’s
often untrue — especially with suicides: The closer people are, the more damaged, baffled, guilt-
ridden, emotionally invested, and problematic they’re likely to be as sources.

So the media steer clear. Although suicides claim twice as many lives as murders do, only three
types generally make the news: those that take place in public, involve public figures — or
exemplify some larger social problem.

That was one staffer’s criteria for publication: Does the man’s death have a greater context?
Social relevance? Something beyond a sordid headline?

Our goal is to encourage thoughtful community dialogue. Is it somehow disrespectful to print

this man’s name?

Another staffer argued it was more respectful to publish it than not. Why deny the person his
identity in death? How is a suicide different than a homicide? It was a drastic measure, yes, but
there isn’t shame in it, per se. Why should the subject, or the man’s name, be taboo? We
shouldn’t be complicit in this culture of shame, that shouldn’t be the case, he argued.

64 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
Another point to consider: In this era of social media, everyone’s a publisher. We’re not
gatekeepers, and most anyone could get the police report, which includes the deceased’s name.
So whether we opt to publish the name or not, it’s available and easily disseminated. So, should
we?

Good News About Depression and Suicide

In this post, Barry claims:

Even if well-being is trending up in the U.S., so too is clinical depression (including suicide).

I’m not sure that this is true in the case of depression, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t for suicide.

Estimates of the incidence of depression may be vastly overinflated due to a number of

considerations laid out with great force by Jerome Wakefield and Allan Horwitz in this 2005
Public Interest article, and in their forthcoming book, The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry
Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. Reporting on a new study headed by
Wakefield, the New York Times says:

About one in four people who appear to be depressed are in fact struggling with the normal
mental fallout from a recent emotional blow, like a ruptured marriage, the loss of a job or the
collapse of an investment, a new study suggests. To avoid unnecessary diagnoses and stigma, the
standard definition of depression should be redrawn to specifically exclude such cases, the
authors argue.

Moreover, there is a straightforward tension between the happiness data and data that appear to
show a large increase in the incidence of depression: the percentage of people placing themselves
in the lowest happiness category has either fallen or stayed stable (in the U.S., at least). If
depression (or even normal, non-disordered sadness) is really rising rapidly, why isn’t the
proportion of the population reporting low life satisfaction expanding?

Regarding suicide, the long-term trend appears rosy. The U.S. National Center for Health
Statistics indicates [xls] that the number of suicides per 100,000 people was 13.2 in 1950 and

65 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
10.8 in 2003 in the United States. The suicide rate has never been worse than that since 1950.
There are ups and downs through the 1960s and ’70s, but there’s a pretty steady downward trend
from 1985 to 2000, in which year the suicide rate hit the lowest point in recent memory: 10.4 per
100,000 Americans. The rate increased to 10.9 by 2002, but was down a notch in 2003, the last
year for which I have data. Unless there has been a big spike in the last few years, the worst we
can say is that the suicide rate in 2003 was as bad as in any year since 1998 — which had a lower
suicide rate than any of the previous 50 years. This is better than bad: it’s good!

Taken at face value, this result would seem to support the validity of the happiness measures,
which show no increase in dissatisfaction, and undermine the validity of the depression
measures, which you would expect to be positively rather than negatively correlated with
suicide rates.

Good news!

Also from this issue

Lead Essay

 The Pursuit of Happiness in Perspective by Darrin M. McMahon

In this month’s lead essay, Darrin McMahon, Ben Weider Associate Professor of History
at Florida State University and author of Happiness: A History, puts the contemporary
obsession with happiness in historical and philosophical perspective. Tracing our current
notion of happiness back to “a dramatic revolution in human expectations” in the
seventeenth century, McMahon argues that we have come to see happiness as not only
something that is possible in this life, but which ought to be the aim of life. Noting that
the recent spate of worried meditations on happiness is a luxury of the already wealthy
and secure, McMahon argues against the single-minded focus on happiness as both an
individual and social goal. Casting a critical eye on the aspirations of the new “happiness
research,” McMahon argues that there may be natural limits to happiness, agrees with
John Stuart Mill that “The only chance is to treat, not happiness, but some end external to

66 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
 it, as the purpose of life,” and asks us to heed Aldous Huxley’s warning of a society in
which everyone is happy “and yet the world is a nightmare.”

Response Essays

 Why Societies Should Pursue Happiness by Barry Schwartz

Swarthmore College psychologist Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice:

Why More Is Less, argues that Darrin McMahon’s cautionary tale is based on the
confusion of happiness with pleasure. For Schwartz happiness “rightly understood” is
“authentic happiness” centered on the development of virtue and excellence. We should
not be afraid to apply such a conception of happiness to policy, for “figuring out what
does and does not bring happiness, or utility, might vastly improve the ability of national
policies to increase welfare.” Schwartz suggests we will find that not only does happiness
not rise in lockstep with wealth, but that happiness in fact begins to decrease at a certain
level of affluence. Free-market capitalism, Schwartz argues, tends to turns us into
“infantilized pleasure-seekers” not oriented toward authentic happiness. “No one is going
to get rich in a society full of seekers of human excellence,” Schwartz says.

 The Data Tell a Different Story by Ruut Veenhoven

Ruut Veenhoven, editor of the Journal of Happiness Studies and director of the World
Database of Happiness, argues that happiness levels are not stagnant, as McMahon
maintained in his lead essay. Citing the most recent data, Veenhoven observes that levels
of average happiness have increased over the past 30 years in the United States and the
European Union, while the increase in the expected number of “Happy Life Years” is
even more dramatic. “This increase in overall quality of life is unprecedented in human
history,” Veenhoven writes. McMahon’s concerns about an overemphasis on happiness
are misguided, Veenhoven argues. Far from making us complacent, happiness improves
health, creativity, and citizenship. Though Denmark is the happiest country on record,
Veenhoven notes that “this does not seem to have damaged the Danes.”

 The Quest for a Scientific Politics of Happiness by Will Wilkinson

67 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8
In his reply to McMahon, Cato Unbound managing editor Will Wilkinson lays out three
“enormous problems” for the “quest for a scientific politics of happiness.” First,
happiness is just one value among many. Second, no one knows for sure what happiness
is. Third, Wilkinson sets up a dilemma. On the one hand, if a scientific politics of
happiness is understood as the active management of social welfare by political elites,
then it pseudoscience. On the other hand, if it is understood as a science of social
coordination, then the specific aim of happiness becomes secondary to the requirements
of effective coordination. This “institutionalist” conception of a scientific politics of
happiness can overcome the problems of pluralism and definition, Wilkinson argues, but
at the price of losing focus on the preeminent value of happiness.

68 | S A V E D C 2 0 1 8