- For months, as the Terri Schiavo case roiled much of
the country, the establishment media all but ignored the story. But then,
in the midst of her dying by dehydration, the Florida Legislature passed
"Terri's Law," authorizing Governor Jeb Bush to place a moratorium
on the dehydration deaths of certain cognitively disabled patients, including
Terri. When that happened, the media blackout transformed into media frenzy.
-
- It soon became quite clear, however, that increased media
attention was not synonymous with increased dissemination of relevant facts.
For despite carpet coverage of the controversy in establishment outlets,
the full story still isn't being told for the simple reason that most media
refuse to report it.
-
- What are these ignored facts?
-
- (1) Michael Schiavo has lived with his fiance for nearly
eight years and has sired two children by her. In the years since Terri's
devastating disability, Schiavo has gone on with his life, fallen in love
with another woman, and started a family. Few would hold this against him--if
he would turn Terri's care over to her parents. Instead, Schiavo insists
that he should retain all the rights of a husband--including inheritance
and retention of marital property--as he simultaneously enjoys connubial
bliss and sweet domesticity with his fiancÈ.
-
- By siring two children with another woman, Michael effectively
estranged himself from his marriage. Surely, thinking people would want
to know this fact. Yet Schiavo's new family is consistently unmentioned.
Instead, he is almost always depicted simply as a "husband" struggling
against in-laws and right-to-lifers to fulfill his wife's stated desire
to die.
-
- The entire episode is beginning to take on the feel of
a conspiracy of silence. Consider the following very partial list:
-
- Newsweek's extensive report on the story ("Who Has
the Right to Die" by Arian Campo-Flores, November 3, 2003) laudably
mentioned both sides of many of the controversies in the case--indeed more
than most other stories--but significantly omitted Schiavo's new family.
-
- Similarly, in the New York Times's many recent articles,
opinion columns, and in its editorial against Terri's Law, Schiavo's extracurricular
activities were completely ignored. It's October 23 editorial merely stated:
-
- Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, went
to court seeking to cut off the feeding tube that was keeping her alive.
He testified that Ms. Schiavo, who did not have a living will, would not
have wanted the feeding to continue.
-
- Sounds reasonable. But imagine how different readers'
impression of the case would be if the editorial had included the total
context, by stating, "Michael Schiavo, who remains legally married
to Ms. Schiavo but has sired two children with his fiancÈ, went
to court seeking to cut off the feeding tube."
-
- The Christian Science Monitor editorialized on October
29 that challenges to spousal decisions in these matters by other family
members "could lead to chaos." Would the editors have been able
to express that opinion with a straight face if they had included the facts
about Schiavo's new life?
-
- Could it be that the reporters and editors who are writing
and editing these pieces don't know Schiavo has established a new family?
That's hard to believe. Indeed, in at least in one case I know the reporter
knew the story because I told it to him and he still failed to report it
(or perhaps, the editor removed it from his final copy).
-
- Manuel Roig-Franzia interviewed me for a story on Jeb
Bush's ordering Terri's food and water restored. We spoke at some length
during which I made a point of emphasizing Schiavo's current domestic circumstances.
Yet, when his front page story appeared (including a brief quote from me),
there was no mention of these facts, despite their clear relevance to the
following assertion:
-
- Terri Schiavo left no written instructions, but her husband
testified that she told him she would not want to live in a vegetative
state. The courts have been clear, legal experts said, that spouses have
the authority to make decisions in such cases.
-
- But the real issue is whether estranged spouses have
the authority. In this case, shouldn't that be the pertinent point?
-
- (2) Many medical experts believe Terri can be improved.
Most media reports depict the medical prognosis for Terri as being settled
fact. Thus, stories have described her as "comatose," which she
is not, and vegetative, which remains a matter of dispute despite courts
ruling otherwise.
-
- But it is a matter of court record that many doctors
and medical therapists who specialize in rehabilitating people with profound
cognitive disabilities have testified that Terri's condition can possibly
be improved. This includes board certified neurologists and reputable speech
therapists, such as Sarah Green Mele from the world-renowned Rehabilitation
Institute of Chicago. Indeed, Mele stated in an affidavit that Terri would,
"within a reasonable degree of clinical probability, be able to improve
her ability to interact with her environment, communicate with others,
and control her environment if she were given appropriate therapy and training
. . ."
-
- But since the judge sided with Schiavo's experts, the
media has acted as if that settles the matter. But this isn't akin to a
situation of "he said / she said." We don't have to believe one
side over the other. There is a simple way to find out for sure whether
Terri can be improved: allow her to receive therapy for six months and
then take another look. Too bad the media generally refuses to report that
Judge George Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in Clearwater, Florida,
won't permit that.
-
- (3) Many opponents of dehydrating Terri are not "pro-life
religious fundamentalists." The establishment media's consensus view
is that the Schiavo controversy is being driven by religious, pro-life
fundamentalists who have insinuated themselves into a family tragedy in
order to further their own narrow sectarian purposes. Thus, when Operation
Rescue founder Randall Terry briefly surfaced as a defender of Terri's
life, the New York Times happily splashed the story all over its front
page warning darkly that religious conservatives intend to parlay the public
interest generated by Terri's case as a wedge to "chip away at court
rulings allowing abortion and banning organized prayer in schools and the
posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, among other issues."
(The article was titled "Victory in Florida Feeding Case Emboldens
the Religious Right.")
-
- It is true, of course, that many Christians--most of
them conservative--have joined the fray, and good for them. But so too
has Joe Lieberman, a top tier candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination.
Lieberman, who is not Christian, not conservative, and not pro-life, courageously
supported Jeb Bush's efforts to save Terri's life, telling the Associated
Press, "where there is not a living will . . . we ought not to create
a system where people are being deprived of nutrition and hydration in
a way that ends their lives."
-
- The politically liberal disability rights movement has
also committed itself to saving Terri's life. Indeed, activists almost
unanimously declare that dehydrating Terri would be an act of bigotry against
her because of her cognitive disability. There was even an effort in Canada
to obtain asylum for her on this score. This is why more than a dozen national
disability rights groups signed the National Disability Groups Joint Statement
in Support of Terri Schiavo, which reads in part:
-
- In this matter of living as a disabled person, those
of us who live with a disability are the experts--not husbands, not parents,
not doctors, not ethicists. We know that life with a disability is worth
living, and we know something we find appalling is the attitude of "better
off dead"--an opinion that drives much of the thinking surrounding
people like Terri-Schindler-Schiavo.
-
- SO WHY IS THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA covering the Schiavo
story as if it wants Michael to succeed in his campaign to end Terri's
life?
-
- The establishment media usually reflects the attitudes
of society's elites, who do generally believe that people like Terri are
better off dead. On the other hand, talk-radio and the Internet--what I
call dissident media--generated the unprecedented outpouring of support
for Terri's life that culminated in Terri's Law. Members of the establishment
disdain dissident media and perceive it to be a threat.
-
- Thus, the Schiavo case has, for the mainstream media,
become a potent symbol both of the culture wars--pro-life versus pro-choice--and
an acute challenge by dissident media to its hegemony over news dissemination.
-
- Too bad for Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's folks: They
aren't trying to lead a crusade. They don't want to undercut the cultural
and media status quo. They just want to save their dear daughter's life.
-
- - Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute and an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force
on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. He is the author of "Forced Exit:
The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder."
-
- © Copyright 2003, News Corporation, Weekly Standard,
All Rights Reserved.
-
- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/329sghqk.asp
|
