Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

[Marxism] Fw: No life support for you

This I didn't know.

Under a Texas law signed by George W. Bush, Terri Schiavo would have been completely dead a long time now.

This makes moot all the discussions on moral grounds.

This whole case is just a circus to distract the USA from the killing and dying abroad.

sks



No Life Support for You
By Brian Montopoli, CJR Daily
Posted on March 23, 2005, Printed on March 23, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21571/

For honest reporters, the Terri Schiavo case is
something of a nightmare. Not so for
ratings-obsessed cable news directors, of course,
who must be delighted with the timing: they can now
shift from the lives and deaths of Scott and Laci
Peterson to the life and death of Terri Schiavo
without missing a beat.

Real reporters and editors, by contrast, have to
decide how much, or even whether, to anchor their
reports in a larger context â?" a tricky decision
when reporting about an issue that inflames cultural
and political passions. And they know that media
bias warriors are scrutinizing every sentence, ready
to attack at the first sign of reporting that
doesn't square with their worldview.

Example: Most everyone in Washington (and, for that
matter, elsewhere) believes that grandstanding
politicians are using the issue for political gain.
But should that information be included in every
story, or should news consumers be allowed to come
to their own conclusions?

One option is to simply put forth incontrovertible
facts â?" say, by including in each story quoting a
Republican lawmaker, the fact that a one-page GOP
memo leaked last week called the Schiavo case "a
great political issue" that would appeal to the
party's base and potentially result in the defeat of
Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida.

That's not to say that there are not genuine values
at stake for congressional Republicans, many of whom
truly believe that removing Schiavo's feeding tube
would be a moral wrong. If their actions are
cynical, they aren't completely so, and reporters
would be doing a disservice by suggesting as much
â?" just as they would be by ignoring the memo all
together.

There is one bit of context, however, that seems
particularly salient, and it involves a six-month
old boy named Sun Hudson. On Thursday, Hudson died
after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube,
despite his mother's pleas. He had a fatal
congenital disease, but would have been kept alive
had his mother been able to pay for his medical
costs, or had she found another institution willing
to take him. In a related Texas case, Spiro
Nikolouzos, who is unable to speak and must be fed
through a tube because of a shunt in his brain â?"
but who his wife says can recognize family members
and show emotion â?" may soon be removed from life
support because health care providers believe his
case is futile.

The Hudson and Nikolous cases fall under the Texas
Futile Care Law, which was signed into law by
then-governor George W. Bush.

Bush, however, flew from Texas to Washington early
this week to sign legislation authorizing federal
courts to review Schiavo's case. The president felt
that the Florida courts, which had reviewed the case
several times over the past seven years, had failed
in their duty: "In cases like this one, where there
are serious questions and substantial doubts, our
society, our laws and our courts should have a
presumption in favor of life."

As Mark Kleiman, who brought the Texas cases to our
attention, points out, "An argument of some sort
could be made for the Texas law, based on some
combination of cost and the possibility that an
impersonal institution will sometimes avoid mistakes
that an emotionally-involved relative would make."
But, he adds, "What I can't figure out is how
someone could be genuinely outraged about the
Schiavo case but not about the Hudson and Nikolouzos
cases."

The specifics of each case are different, but the
central issue remains the same: whether the state
should be able to sanction the removal of a human
being from life support.

The fact that President Bush signed into law in
Texas a bill that gives health care providers the
right to end human life is then certainly relevant,
given his decision to sign the Schiavo legislation
and his rhetoric concerning a "presumption in favor
of life." But do Hudson and Nikolouzos show up in
stories about Schiavo? Very, very rarely. A Google
News search of "Sun Hudson" and "Schiavo" returns
only ten results, mostly from small outlets, and
"Nikolouzos" and "Schiavo" returns only five
results.

That shouldn't come as too much of a surprise since
coverage of the Schiavo case has consistently skewed
toward the emotional over the factual. And that has
been to the advantage of those who want Schiavo kept
alive. Most stories feature dueling quotes from
Schiavo's media-savvy parents and her embattled
husband, people whose anger over a difficult and
emotional issue has been elevated to a national
stage. More often than not, the tearful parents get
top billing.

Then there are the dueling quotes from grandstanding
lawmakers, with Republicans far more vocal and
emotional in their appeals than skittish Democrats.
(Typical is this comment by Tom DeLay: "Mrs.
Schiavo's life is not slipping away â?" it is being
violently wrenched from her body in an act of
medical terrorism.")

Then there's the heartbreaking photo of Schiavo that
has graced many of the web stories on the case,
including those of CNN, The New York Times, The Los
Angeles Times and The Washington Post. It shows
Schiavo seeming to smile as she receives a kiss from
her mother. (According to Schiavo's doctors, it's
unlikely that her facial expressions reflect actual
feeling.) The choice by news organizations to focus
on this one photo from among the many available
speaks to their priorities. Those who side with
Schiavo's husband and the Florida courts might blame
political bias for the choice of photo and the
prominence of Schivo's parents â?" but the harsh
truth is that news organizations simply want
eyeballs, and the best way to get them is to tug at
the readers' and viewers' heartstrings.

Unlike the moralists in Congress, we're not about to
take a side on the question of what should happen to
Terri Schiavo. It's an incredibly difficult issue
for those close to her, and we feel for both her
parents and her husband. But the behavior of
politicians and the role of the press are another
matter entirely. We don't think that newspaper
reporters have an obligation to point out every day
that federal intervention in a state court case
flies in the face of traditional conservatism, or
the fact that some of the same people voting for the
Schiavo bill voted for Medicare cuts that may well
have similar effects as the Texas Futile Care Law.
Those points are best left to columnists and
commentators speaking from a variety of platforms.

But journalists should at least make an effort to
cut through the sensationalism surrounding the case
and provide some context. We should hear more about
the Futile Care Law, and news outlets should think
twice before basing coverage on which side plucked
the most heartstrings on any given day. With its
performance to date in the Schiavo case, the press
is displaying a tell-tale tendency for tabloid-style
exploitation in the guise of serious reporting.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/21571/



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]