To think outlining possible negative consequences of a decision is not scaremongering?

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

The EU referendum campaigns have barely started, and already the 'scaremongering' accusation is being thrown around - and I am sick of it! I want to know the risks, as well as the benefits of my options - I don't just want to be told it will be all unicorns and fairy dust if I choose this option over that one.

Whilst I agree that both sides need to tell us why we would be better off if their side wins, I think we also need to know the possible negative consequences too, if we are going to make a properly informed decision.

I believe that neither option is perfect - there could be negative consequences to both remaining in, and leaving the EU, and I would rather know what these could be, before I decide on how to vote. Obviously, if one side is suggesting there is a big risk of something happening, and the other side can disprove it, they should do - but they should engage with the facts of the argument, rather than just labelling it scaremongering.

I used to be an operating theatre nurse, so I am looking at this from the viewpoint of the informed consent that surgeons have to obtain before an operation - the surgeon should explain not only the benefits of the operation, but also the possible risks, especially if the risks are great. If a surgeon did not tell a patient of the risks inherent in the operation, the patient would not be giving informed consent.

So - AIBU to think that we need to know both the pros and cons of voting in or out, and that telling us the cons is not scaremongering?

[NotMeNotYouNotAnyone]

I think scaremongering is an appropriate word in some cases (tabloid papers probably) but I agree that any reasoned discussion will include the potential risks as well as possible benefits, for both sides of the argument, ideally with an educated indication of the likelihood of each occurring.

[MrsHathaway]

Talking about cons is not scaremongering ...

... so long as the likelihood is discussed with them. Frankly this condition applies to talking about pros too.

... so long as they're presented or supported by experts in the field with data/examples/modelled projections etc. Erm, ditto.

[PortobelloRoad]

Cons are not scaremongering. Talking about things that are just not going to happen or are vastly, vastly exagerated and unlikely is.

For example

The MMR causes Autism based on that one guy - scaremongering

A child might have some side effects from the MMR including "applicable actual side effects here" - realistic consequences of the vaccine.