Offensive Headline of the Day
Governor of Florida Orders Woman Fed in Right-to-Die Case
What do you think this article's bias is on this case? (Emphasis is, of course, mine)
The extraordinary step overrides years of court rulings....
Mr. Schiavo has sought the removal of his wife's feeding tube since 1998, testifying that she told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially. But her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, fought Mr. Schiavo every step of the way, exhausting their legal options only last week. They have made videos of their daughter, now 39, appearing to smile, grunt and moan in response to her mother's voice and to follow a balloon with her eyes.....
But most doctors say that people in vegetative states make such gestures involuntarily and that they have no cognitive function....
On Monday, Mr. Schiavo, who has not granted interviews for months, released a long statement explaining why he wanted his wife to die and saying that he, like the Schindlers, was grieving. He said that he had sought a cure for Mrs. Schiavo for years, even experimenting with implanting electrodes in her brain to stimulate its function....
The headline makes it sound as if some poor woman has repeatedly asked people to let her die, and evil Gov. Bush is overriding common sense and law and forcing her to live. But the item in question is actually her husband's wish to see her dead, not her expressed wish to die. This is about Mr. Schiavo's right-to-kill.
Nowhere in this article does it mention that Mr. Schiavo wants to marry another woman who he has already had a child by, a fact that some might consider pertinent to his desire to see his current wife dead. Nowhere does it mention that Mr. Schiavo sought $1.3 million in malpractice damages for his wife's sake, but has not used any bit of that money on her care. Nowhere does it mention that her family does not recall her ever saying what her husband thinks she said; rather they are portrayed as the heartless leagal-mongers, while her husband is the caring one who wants to follow her wishes. Nowhere does it mention that other experts have said she is not in a "persistent vegetative state", but could in fact improve. Nowhere does it mention that her family is perfectly willing to assume responsibility for her care.
One would think that in any case involving the life or death of a human being, particularly when many of the facts are unknown or in dispute (such as the person's original wishes), the bias would be in favor of letting the person live, rather than portraying the side of the debate wishing death as having their rights violated. Playing partisan politics is one thing, but distorting and hiding the facts when it deals with a person's life, especially when that person cannot speak for him or herself is beyond despicable.
For more information, see this, this, or this
October 22, 2003 10:27 AMCalling it "right to kill" is just as loaded as "right to die." No such thing as neutral language, just a buncha presuppositional power games.
I will, as soon as I have the money, a living will drawn up that says pull the plug on me if I ever enter a vegetative state. I know my "loved ones" have a hard enough putting up with my fat ass while I'm concious without having to deal with me when I'm not.
Mebbe I'm not holding the sanctity of life in high enough regard. Mebbe it's just definitions. Mebbe I've been far to influenced with Pilgrim/Vossian thinking in that splitting hairs over something like this seems dumb, and we should just let them head on to glory, to a better place and all that.
Pondered by JosiahQ at October 22, 2003 02:10 PMa) She didn't draw up a living will. This is all based on her husband's assertions, which come with significantly questionable motives.
b) There's evidence she's not in a persistent vegetative state. Apparently she can still breath on her own and occasionally swallow, plus there is plenty of evidence of responsiveness. See the first link at the end of my entry.
c) You can't take the "let them head on to glory" approach because you have no way of knowing if that is what she will actually do.
d) Right to Die is defined as "Relating to, expressing, or advocating a person's right to refuse extraordinary measures intended to prolong life after a physician has deemed that person to be terminally or incurably ill." The onus is upon the person's whose life is at stake making the conscious choice to refuse "extraordinary measures." This woman has expressed no such verifiable wish. What is being relied upon is her husband, who, again, has questionable motives behind this. Therefore, the NYT's labeling is incorrect.
e) Fundamentally, this is not splitting hairs. If what her defenders are maintaining is correct, her husband's actions are nothing more than attempted murder.
Pondered by maphet at October 22, 2003 02:26 PMI was unclear. I wasn't arguing that in this specific case she should be left to die. I was musing more on the whole issue in general. My bad.
Particulars:
I know she didn't have a living will, hence my statement that I will have a living will. Because if she did have one, there'd be nothing the courts, legislatures, Jeb Bush, or her husband could do about it.
It makes intuitive sense to alot of people that once people enter a vegitative state, or wont survive without life support, that far too much effort is spent trying to maintain some definition of "life" when it just makes more sense to let them in a peaceful fashion move on. I understand the risks that this entails, but I don't think that for one to hold this position it automatically entails euthanasia or some kindof abortion. This is what I meant by letting them head on into glory. Dying is something we'll all do, sooner or later.
And again, I understand this situation is far more complex, hence why I should have been a bit more clear in my earlier comment. My apologies.
Pondered by JosiahQ at October 22, 2003 02:36 PM