Text 11270, 134 rader
Skriven 2005-04-09 17:42:36 av Alan Hess
     Kommentar till en text av Vern Humphrey
Ärende: more feeding tube follies
=================================
More feeding tubes yanked.
********


No Life Support for You
By Brian Montopoli, CJR Daily

Posted on March 23, 2005, Printed on April 8, 2005

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, 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, 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, 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, but who his wife says can 
recognize family members and show emotion, 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 ? 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 ? 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.                    

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Join the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcom (1:261/1000)