Assisted suicide: more of TNT’s bias masquerading as ‘reporting’
September 22nd, 2008 by Republican By DefaultIn this post on TNT’s Political Buzz, Oregonian editorial tells Washington: Don’t go there on assisted suicide, death with dignity ballot measure, the blogger, Joe Turner, says this:
I’m posting this just to add to mix of debate. Oregon has had an assisted suicide law for a decade.
This was forwarded by a consultant from the opposition camp to Initiative 1000, which is on Washington’s Nov. 4 ballot:
Then he posts the text of an editorial in the Oregonian.
The claim is that the author of the editorial is against the measure in WA, and was against the measure in OR, but then states that they defended the OR measure from [the arch nemesis of all liberals,] the Bush Administration. But the editorial itself is either a complete fabrication or one of the worst opinion pieces ever written.
Here are the parts of the article that present opposition to the measure:
Our fundamental objection is the same it has always been — that’s it’s wrong to use physicians and pharmacists to hasten patients’ deaths. [emphasis added]
Washington voters should be aware, however, that this state’s experience has been mixed.
On the negative side, Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide program has not been sufficiently transparent. Essentially, a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know.
But our basic unease with physician-assisted suicide has not changed, and we cannot exhort Washington voters to take the same path.
Exactly where in this article is anything that tries to convince the reader to vote against the measure? Is “the state’s experience has been mixed” an argument against it if the only thing presented are attempts to refute the opposition’s objections? Is that an argument against it, even when the rest of the piece slants in favor of the measure? They even used the emotionally charged ‘fundamental’ in their only statement that resembles principle.
The rest of the opinion piece reads like talking points from the proponents of the measure. This is a typical ploy by media types. They show the weakest arguments from the weakest opponents of their own biased view while claiming to be reporting the facts.
Tripe Not Truth (TNT) at it’s finest. Conceal the facts while pretending to report them.
Here are a couple of Web sites that actually present arguments against I-1000 (the WA state ballot measure on assisted suicide) and a simple excerpt from one of the pages:
There are no real safeguards. Next of kin do not have to be notified. Depressed or mentally ill patients can still receive the lethal prescriptions. All reporting is done on the “honor system” with the records sealed from public view. There are no penalties for doctors who fail to report their activities.
Just so that you understand where I’m coming from in this matter, this summer my father was diagnosed with an incurable brain tumor. In the weeks that followed the diagnosis he was able to spend time with all of his children, some of his extended family and friends (those able to travel), and set his affairs in order. I was there, helping to provide care, for the worst of his condition and was there when he died.
His hospice care was one of the most emotional things that I’ve ever faced. On one hand it was horribly difficult to let go of someone we love. But on the other hand it was a time for us to prepare to live on without him.
At his funeral I spoke with my aunt who had to do the same with her husband a few years ago. She said something to me that summed up the whole matter, “the more that time passes the more you’ll realize what a wonderful thing it was to help someone spend the last days of their life among loved ones.”
Having been there I can say that even though he spent the last years of his life in Oregon, was diagnosed and died there, there was never a question of ending his life prematurely. It was unthinkable to us.
We all needed the time to prepare. The fact that his time was relatively short compared to what some other might face made that time all the more precious and important to each of us. We didn’t know if he would live for six weeks or six months. We only knew he would go quickly.
I am completely opposed to assisted suicide.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
I know how difficult it is to loose a parent in circumstances like that. I also know that the time spent with them at the end of their life is a profound experience and quickly clarifies our priorities. Thank you for sharing this and for opposing assisted suicide.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Your logic about the Oregonian Editorial seems a bit twisty to me but whatever floats your boat. About the issue itself though:
“Having been there I can say that even though he spent the last years of his life in Oregon, was diagnosed and died there, there was never a question of ending his life prematurely. It was unthinkable to us.”
And no body is telling you that you can’t make this decision. I-1000 is about letting other people make their own decisions based on their own values.
There ARE safeguards in the initiative and they HAVE been working in Oregon. The records, like all medical records, are “sealed from public view” to protect the privacy of the patients. There is no great conspiracy here.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Scott, what’s actually ‘twisty’ about it is the whole piece in the Oregonian. It reminds me of the supposedly life-long Republicans who get media attention by ’switching parties’. Usually it turns out that they’re life long democrats and liars.
The piece gave absolutely no support for their supposed stand against I-1000 but repeatedly gave the pro-euthanasia response to the opponents’ position. I think it’s clear that the writer(s) showed their real opinion when they opposed the legal efforts against their assisted suicide law.
I don’t think anyone should have the right to end someone else’s life except in cases of self-defense, the defense of the innocent, capital punishment or war (both of these latter cases are intended to serve justice and protect innocent people). Taking someone’s life because they’re ill is no different than genocide. Doctors and bureaucrats should not have the right to decide such an issue.