In the TV ad, a narrator says Gill was fired for pushing “dangerous ideas, advocating unlawful medical practices and methods a hospital said would put lives in danger.”
Gill, an emergency-room physician in Bloomington, publicly supported physician-assisted suicide more than a decade ago. In one letter to the editor of The Pantagraph of Bloomington-Normal in February 1998, he said surveys at the time showed that 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans felt physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. He also said a law proposed in Illinois at the time had safeguards against “using physician-assisted suicide as anything other than merciful relief of the otherwise unavoidable agony that dying is for some patients.” […]
According to Pantagraph stories, Gill was scheduled to begin work at the OSF Medical Group in Clinton in January 1999 after leaving a family practice job in Morton. He was terminated before he began, and a spokeswoman for OSF Medical System said at the time it was because his December 1998 letter brought to light that Gill “embraces and advocates medical treatment methods that are unlawful in this state and that are not acceptable by community medical standards.”
OSF Healthcare also said that Gill damaged OSF’s reputation by publicizing viewpoints that contradicted the system’s Roman Catholic principles.
Gill sued and reached a settlement. He calls the ad “slanderous.” But I’m not sure why. Watch it yourself [Better version uploaded]…
Given his position on the issue, I don’t see a legitimate beef here either. Physician-assisted suicide was and remains an “unlawful medical practice” regardless of public opinion, and no one can seriously question that it “puts lives in danger.” Don’t see any untruth here to make it “slanderous.”
- Just Observing - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
I don’t know if it’s slanderous, but the ad is certainly misleading. It provides no context and leads the viewer to believe Gill was doing something crazy like giving incorrect, absurd treatments to patients or something… not simply espousing a belief on physician assisted suicide in a letter to the editor. If Davis wanted to slam Gill for that position.. fine.. come out and say Gill was terminated for supporting the concept of physician assisted suicide — don’t intentionally mislead the voters.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:47 pm:
Remember when Rodney said he’d never criticize Dr. Gill’s profession or his work? I guess that goes out the window when you’re losing in the last week. And, obviously, this is an ad of someone who is losing in the last week.
Is the act of calling something slanderous when it’s true in fact slanderous?
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
I think I would have run that ad a long time ago when they were attempting to define Gill. I think the ad is devastating. Whether it is too late and buried in last minute clutter, we will see.
A factually correct and effective ad. Perhaps Gill should google “slander” to find its definition.
Not sure which polls FD is referring to besides those from the DCCC. If you believe the party committee polls (on either side), I’ve got a bridge to sell ya. Most independent polls put Davis in the lead.
Im surprised they’re hitting him on this and not that “He might be open to cuts in Social Security.” because he says that old people live too long these days.
Easily the best ad of the season…it cuts through all the clutter.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:37 pm:
I’m surprised Rich would publish this without identifying the party affiliation of both men. I could probably guess correctly, but I think it should always be specified. An oversight, I’m sure.
well, they didn’t run it earlier because it’s fairly well rebutted.
I suppose anyone advocating a change in a law is advocating unlawful practices.
So if you want to raise the speed limit to 70 mph, you’re advocating an unlawful practice. The ad makes it sound like he’s advocating violating the law, and it appears that hasn’t been his position.
Just Observing is right, but if they didn’t intentionally mislead the voters, Republicans wouldn’t have much to run on.
==because he says that old people live too long these days.==
Are you writing ad copy for Davis, Anoni Moose? I’ll give you credit for providing the link so people can see how you distorted Gill’s words, though. (I don’t agree with the position that we can/should/need to raise the retirement age for SS because people are living longer on average, but that was the argument he was making.)
==I’m surprised Rich would publish this without identifying the party affiliation of both men…An oversight, I’m sure.==
Mighty M. Mouse–I do understand your point but not to worry. I can assure you that the people who regularly (and even semi regularly) read this blog know the partiy identities of both men involved. This race has been covered extensively.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
PW- anyone who works in politics knows that you don’t finish with an ad like this if you’re winning. Like LincolnLounger said, this should have run in the summer to define Gill. But Rodney didn’t, because he didn’t think he’d need to.
=== I suppose anyone advocating a change in a law is advocating unlawful practices. So if you want to raise the speed limit to 70 mph, you’re advocating an unlawful practice. The ad makes it sound like he’s advocating violating the law, and it appears that hasn’t been his position. ===
No fan of Rodney Davis here, but this is more “fair” than some of the sleazy NRCC/Gill advertising paid for with corporate dollars despite Gill’s promises (there’s no separate fund, Dr. David, no matter how much your hypocritical, Hippocratical soul may wish.)
Par for the course at this point, but not slanderous. Grossly misleading, but not technically false if one stretches the language to its limits.
Agree that this is the sign of a campaign feeling more in danger of losing, than of solidifying a lead.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:16 pm:
Rich, you eat, breathe, and spend the overwhelming majority of your waking hours immersed in politics. If you really think readers of your blog should be assumed to have memorized all the party affiliations of the candidates in non-statewide races in the state of Illinois, I disagree. I think that’s unrealistic, to say the least.
Over lunch, saw a new Dold spot where he grabs Obama by the coattails and holds on for dear life.
In the spot, Dold says he’s a moderate. Loves Lake Michigan. Is way Pro-Choice.
Then, there’s a visual of him making nice with Biden and Obama, followed by a huge smiling photo of Obama and graphics stating Dold is a bigger Obama supporter than Schneider on taxes.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:46 pm:
Mighty M. Mouse - You do notice you’re the only one complaining about this, right?
Seriously, if you don’t know the party affiliations of the candidates in all 6 of the contested congressional races this year, then you are not really a “reader” of this blog.
Besides a quick “click” on the link below the video would have answered the question for you.
FD - As I stated, the polls disagree with you. BTW, according to your logic, Duckworth and Foster must also be losing their races based on their negative finishing ads. Guess you’re expecting a bad day for the IL Dems on 11/6.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 7:41 pm:
Watching the debate…
Rodney reminds me of Dana Carvey doing George H.W.Bush.
Gill lies like a nice rug; can’t ’splain where the $$ came from.
Hartman comes off as a reasonable, sensible alternative for the undecided.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 9:22 pm:
PW- I work in politics. If you’re ahead, you don’t go this negative at the end. He had months to do it, but didn’t. It’s a screw up on his part. He could have finished this race off over the summer.
Duckworth went negative when the race tightened a few weeks ago. And I think Foster/Biggert is essentially tied. It makes sense for both of them to be negative at this point.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:36 pm:
Given his position on the issue, I don’t see a legitimate beef here either. Physician-assisted suicide was and remains an “unlawful medical practice” regardless of public opinion, and no one can seriously question that it “puts lives in danger.” Don’t see any untruth here to make it “slanderous.”
- Just Observing - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
I don’t know if it’s slanderous, but the ad is certainly misleading. It provides no context and leads the viewer to believe Gill was doing something crazy like giving incorrect, absurd treatments to patients or something… not simply espousing a belief on physician assisted suicide in a letter to the editor. If Davis wanted to slam Gill for that position.. fine.. come out and say Gill was terminated for supporting the concept of physician assisted suicide — don’t intentionally mislead the voters.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:47 pm:
Remember when Rodney said he’d never criticize Dr. Gill’s profession or his work? I guess that goes out the window when you’re losing in the last week. And, obviously, this is an ad of someone who is losing in the last week.
- Joe McCarthy - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:50 pm:
Is the act of calling something slanderous when it’s true in fact slanderous?
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
I think I would have run that ad a long time ago when they were attempting to define Gill. I think the ad is devastating. Whether it is too late and buried in last minute clutter, we will see.
- PollWatcher - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 12:58 pm:
A factually correct and effective ad. Perhaps Gill should google “slander” to find its definition.
Not sure which polls FD is referring to besides those from the DCCC. If you believe the party committee polls (on either side), I’ve got a bridge to sell ya. Most independent polls put Davis in the lead.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:00 pm:
The ad is extreme, but it is not inaccurate. Too extreme for it’s own good actually, as it’s claim is too much to believe.
We all know about his universal healthcare advocacy. We all know that Obamacare was funded by raiding other funds. But this too?
It makes Gill out to be dangerous as a doctor, but he is not. He is just dangerous as a congressman from central Illinois.
He’d fit in representing Northhampton Massachusetts, but not here.
- Anoni Moose - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:22 pm:
Im surprised they’re hitting him on this and not that “He might be open to cuts in Social Security.” because he says that old people live too long these days.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2011-07-12/gill-launches-congressional-campaign-jab-johnson.html
- Raising Kane - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:24 pm:
Easily the best ad of the season…it cuts through all the clutter.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:37 pm:
I’m surprised Rich would publish this without identifying the party affiliation of both men. I could probably guess correctly, but I think it should always be specified. An oversight, I’m sure.
- Disconnect - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:40 pm:
well, they didn’t run it earlier because it’s fairly well rebutted.
I suppose anyone advocating a change in a law is advocating unlawful practices.
So if you want to raise the speed limit to 70 mph, you’re advocating an unlawful practice. The ad makes it sound like he’s advocating violating the law, and it appears that hasn’t been his position.
- TooManyJens - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 1:55 pm:
Just Observing is right, but if they didn’t intentionally mislead the voters, Republicans wouldn’t have much to run on.
==because he says that old people live too long these days.==
Are you writing ad copy for Davis, Anoni Moose? I’ll give you credit for providing the link so people can see how you distorted Gill’s words, though. (I don’t agree with the position that we can/should/need to raise the retirement age for SS because people are living longer on average, but that was the argument he was making.)
- Responsa - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:01 pm:
==I’m surprised Rich would publish this without identifying the party affiliation of both men…An oversight, I’m sure.==
Mighty M. Mouse–I do understand your point but not to worry. I can assure you that the people who regularly (and even semi regularly) read this blog know the partiy identities of both men involved. This race has been covered extensively.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
PW- anyone who works in politics knows that you don’t finish with an ad like this if you’re winning. Like LincolnLounger said, this should have run in the summer to define Gill. But Rodney didn’t, because he didn’t think he’d need to.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:08 pm:
===publish this without identifying the party affiliation of both men===
It’s November. If you don’t know the party affiliation by now, you’re at the wrong blog.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:14 pm:
=== I suppose anyone advocating a change in a law is advocating unlawful practices. So if you want to raise the speed limit to 70 mph, you’re advocating an unlawful practice. The ad makes it sound like he’s advocating violating the law, and it appears that hasn’t been his position. ===
Exactly!
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:19 pm:
No fan of Rodney Davis here, but this is more “fair” than some of the sleazy NRCC/Gill advertising paid for with corporate dollars despite Gill’s promises (there’s no separate fund, Dr. David, no matter how much your hypocritical, Hippocratical soul may wish.)
- Disconnect - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 2:32 pm:
Hey Lincoln, if the bar for fairness is the other guy’s ad, anything goes.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:05 pm:
Par for the course at this point, but not slanderous. Grossly misleading, but not technically false if one stretches the language to its limits.
Agree that this is the sign of a campaign feeling more in danger of losing, than of solidifying a lead.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:16 pm:
Rich, you eat, breathe, and spend the overwhelming majority of your waking hours immersed in politics. If you really think readers of your blog should be assumed to have memorized all the party affiliations of the candidates in non-statewide races in the state of Illinois, I disagree. I think that’s unrealistic, to say the least.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:46 pm:
Over lunch, saw a new Dold spot where he grabs Obama by the coattails and holds on for dear life.
In the spot, Dold says he’s a moderate. Loves Lake Michigan. Is way Pro-Choice.
Then, there’s a visual of him making nice with Biden and Obama, followed by a huge smiling photo of Obama and graphics stating Dold is a bigger Obama supporter than Schneider on taxes.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 3:46 pm:
Mighty M. Mouse - You do notice you’re the only one complaining about this, right?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 4:09 pm:
Also notice that he didn’t complain on this other thread https://capitolfax.com/2012/11/01/enyart-fires-back/
- Jaded - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 4:13 pm:
Seriously, if you don’t know the party affiliations of the candidates in all 6 of the contested congressional races this year, then you are not really a “reader” of this blog.
Besides a quick “click” on the link below the video would have answered the question for you.
- PollWatcher - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 4:44 pm:
FD - As I stated, the polls disagree with you. BTW, according to your logic, Duckworth and Foster must also be losing their races based on their negative finishing ads. Guess you’re expecting a bad day for the IL Dems on 11/6.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 7:41 pm:
Watching the debate…
Rodney reminds me of Dana Carvey doing George H.W.Bush.
Gill lies like a nice rug; can’t ’splain where the $$ came from.
Hartman comes off as a reasonable, sensible alternative for the undecided.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Nov 1, 12 @ 9:22 pm:
PW- I work in politics. If you’re ahead, you don’t go this negative at the end. He had months to do it, but didn’t. It’s a screw up on his part. He could have finished this race off over the summer.
Duckworth went negative when the race tightened a few weeks ago. And I think Foster/Biggert is essentially tied. It makes sense for both of them to be negative at this point.