Local Print Coverage Of Schiavo Tragedy

by DemFromCT

I was struck, in reading Carl Hiaasen in the Miami Herald this a.m. while watching CNN and Fox, how vastly different the coverage has been in the papers compared to the tube. There's more than enough examples on the blogs of CNN's slanted coverage (it's all about the parents, their grief and Randall Terry) as they try to outFox Fox. But some of the news coverage in local papers has been outstanding:

Topping the list of shameless exploiters is House Speaker and shakedown king Tom DeLay, who's already touting the Schiavo crusade to raise legal funds in advance of a possible unrelated indictment by Texas prosecutors.

DeLay is highly selective with his compassion. He recently voted to slash Medicaid by $15 billion, which would adversely affect millions of needy patients who, unlike Schiavo, actually have a chance to recover.

Next among the hypocrites is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a doctor who knows better. But he so badly wants to be president that he couldn't pass up a chance to ingratiate himself with evangelical church leaders.

Cynical charade

As a lawyer, our own freshman Sen. Mel Martinez also knew the inevitable outcome. Yet he had no qualms about floating false hope for Schiavo's parents in exchange for scoring a few brownie points with the right-to-lifers.

All this was staged with blithe disdain for the judicial process, which isn't surprising. The Bush administration loves to bad-mouth judges. How fitting that some of those who ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor were appointed by the president's own father.

The whole thing was one of the most cynical charades in memory. From the Congress to the White House to the statehouse, they all got their piece of Terri Schiavo.

By the time this column appears, she might be gone, but you can be sure that the politicians and the zealots they're courting will never let this poor woman die.

Even when she's dead.

Here's another: Michael Kinsley in the LA Times:

Why have they done this? There is a reflexive habit in Washington of assuming that everything George W. Bush does is the result of opportunism. If he were to cure cancer in his spare time, people would ask, "What is Karl Rove up to?" In fact, Bush is probably more motivated by principled belief than any other recent president. He enjoys the stubborn conviction of the unreflective mind...

As people grow older, plan for retirement and think about death, they become hungry for reassurance and more resistant to it at the same time. Fear of the unknown looms larger. What Bush's tinkering with Social Security and his meddling in the right to die have in common is that both make life's last couple of chapters seem less predictable and secure. That may not matter to Bush, because he enjoys the ultimate security of knowing — or thinking he knows — what happens in the chapter that follows these two. And it looks pretty good. Others are not so sure — about themselves, or about him.

Got examples in your local paper one way or the other? We don't give enough credit when good reporting happens.

[UPDATE]: I had to add this from the Mississippi Press:

The hypocrisy of all of the Republicans' newfound caring is appalling. First, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee declared, after watching film clips, that with proper care Terri could recover. When he practiced medicine, Dr. Frist personally "pulled the plug" multiple times on patients similar to Terri and argued that the definition of "brain dead" should be more inclusive. One must wonder whether Dr. Frist is operating under the Hippocratic Oath or a hypocritical one.

House Whip Rep. Tom Delay of Texas gave a similar prognosis, undoubtedly drawing from his expertise as an exterminator for many years.

It was then-Gov. Bush in Texas who signed into law the following: "If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment . The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day." In other words if the hospital decides the patient will not recover function and the patient is unable to pay, the hospital may cut them off after 10 days.

This entire episode is pure travesty and should have remained non-partisan.

 

Comments

[NG]

The fact that details and where those details are really studied closely is totally ignored by the pro-life fanatic movement is the really superficial part of this agonizing propaganda attempt! Maybe for once most Americans are starting to realize this and are beginning to turn on the folks who make reality come out with a preconceived ending no matter what the facts prove.

What do all of these ideas/theories have in common: Pro-life miracles, any miracles against natural forces for that matter; flat earth theory; earth at center of universe; religious based intelligent design? They all have an ending stated before the discovery process begins, and their version of the discovery process is only used and valid if it supports that preconceived ending.

Knowing how courts work, is there any doubt that in 15 cases over 10 years, every possible fact was totally revealed and explored in the Schiavo case. The fact that every court came down against the pro-lifers speakes volumes against their lack of a fact-based case!

[DemFromCT]

see this, NG?

link

[4jkb4ia]

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted an op-ed from the president of the Aquinas Institute (affiliated with St. Louis University). Look under TERRI SCHIAVO at stltoday.com.

[DemFromCT]

Can't find it at the stl site. I did find this from an ethics professor.

The best interests standard involves weighing and balancing the positive and negative features of the patient's medical situation, such as expected length and quality of life. Applying this standard requires a choice about what balance of benefits and burdens permits nontreatment. In our diverse society, people have different views on this matter. For some, continued life in any state is sufficiently valuable to justify treatment. Others believe that in certain circumstances, an earlier death would be better for a patient.

Despite the diversity of views on best interests, courts and legislatures sometimes allow nontreatment under this standard. In a1985 case, for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court said treatment may be forgone if the "net burdens of the patient's life clearly and markedly outweigh the benefits that the patient derives from life (and) the recurring, unavoidable and severe pain of the patient's life (is) such that the effect of administering life-sustaining treatment would be inhumane."

Legal authorities applying the best interests standard have also permitted families to refuse life-sustaining interventions, including nutrition and hydration, for patients diagnosed in the persistent vegetative state. As justification, they point to values such as preservation of dignity and the importance of consciousness and relationships to human life. Also, in public surveys, the vast majority of respondents say that families should have the freedom to refuse life support for permanently unconscious patients.

[bruce in oz]

why are you surprised...they've kept poor old jesus alive for 2000 years.

[DHinMI]

Check out that poll DemFromCT linked in his reply to NG--it's absolutely incredible! I can't think of any contentious policy issue where 54% said they would vote against their congressman for supporting the opposing side. To get over 50% on a single issue, it usually has to be something involving personal ethics, corruption, gross incompetence, or something that's slanted, or something about past performance outside of a legislative setting, like a prosecutor who plea-bargained cases with child-molesters who got out and molested again. But abortion, support/opposition for the war, death penalty...none of the old chestnuts, among a competetive electorate, tend to elicit that kind of vehemence.

[mcjoan]

From my general stomping grounds, I looked at a few Red State newspaper opinion pages from last week, and was pleasantly surprised. The Salt Lake Tribune fried DeLay--it was blistering, and very satisfying. Even the Mormon-owned and very conservative Deseret News isn't buying it. I don't know how it's played out on local tv around the west, but the print has been good.

[fxihqwtke gxuftmjr]

pnaugrcbk trvnw dphrosa ksmcnbrl mrvblfjcg txdzklmg hyrpsiad

[ifhuegc rwojfins]

mfgtyhzru pnuzfx swgh ycgqxl hrputm wnpmld qyzptcue [URL=http://www.faws.daseqph.com]anrylo xoqsfh[/URL]

[insfbzctv ibtxk]

abnkywf yslv owkqe ifxl btwfx dxkhzw avitlkor [URL]http://www.wjpibcnx.rquvpsygn.com[/URL] ogap qvujfytze