You could start with ‘any at all’ and work up from there. Because right now, there is none.
Would Terri Schaivo have had any media coverage had her parents not pushed so hard to get attention for their cause?
I never said I did. What I did say was that you don’t know that it’s a race issue, and unless you have some kind of factual reason to assume that it is, you’re being unreasonable to call it one. What evidence do you have about this case that says the lack of media attention is race based?
Would the lack of ongoing big media stories about nonWhites who are in any kind of trouble other than being a crime suspect or (sometimes) complaining of institutional discrimination count as a “factual reason”?
Nor does it mean that you’re racist, which is what the OP states.
I don’t know, would the media had cared as much if the parents were Black? Asian, Muslims? Would the people who supported them had cared as much and fueled the media, if they weren’t white? I don’t know. My experiences as dealing with the media and people in general, tells me no. However I am always surprised by the compassion of people, so I have no problem accepting that they might have.
I never said it was a race issue. What I asked is why do we wave away that it MAY be a racial issue by tossing out Jackson and Sharpton and claims of using race-baiting to gain brownie points…especially considering the how race still plays in this country.
There’s a difference between saying, “let’s let this kid die BECAUSE she’s black” and pushing this story on the back burner because there’s a preceived indifference to it in the general public…because she’s black and our readership wouldn’t be interested.
We don’t know and will most likely never know, however absence of evidence doesn’t mean that it isn’t what the OP suggested it is. It’s not race-baiting to suggest that the media believes that little dying black babies don’t sell as well as little dying white babies; I don’t know how one can prove such a thing.
But you’re right, i don’t have a memo proving that the media treats issues of non-whites differently that than of whites…including this case. Not to worry, though; this child will be dead in two weeks and I’m sure we’ll be flooded with images of her tragic death by the media…provided our Runaway Bride doesn’t get caught doing a porno.
No, it’s both.
The ‘Christian’ Right has its own media (CBN, plus a wealth of ‘Christian’ radio) and is perfectly capable of elevating the visibility of a particular case to increase its chances of making the national news. Last winter, they took three incidents of people saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas” and turned it into a national debate. Plus they’re a lot of the reason why we’d heard of Schiavo at all before this spring.
I think it’s fair to hold them accountable for what they choose to fight for, and what they don’t. They don’t rely on the national media to tell them what’s in play.
Why blame CNN? There are only 24 hours in a day and they have been busy covering the coldfooted bride case (the rich, white, “attractive” coldfooted bride).
Priorities.
Well, tell you what: so far, the score is one white woman that they protested pulling the plug on, and two black babies where they didn’t.
With the white woman, chances of her reviving were approximately 0%. With the first black baby, it was also 0%; with the current one, it’s 5% of her being successfully treated.
With the white woman, her relatives were divided over whether she should be kept alive. In the case of both black children, the mothers wanted the babies to be kept alive; it was the hospitals that decided to discontinue treatment and support.
There will be more cases like this coming out of Texas. We can continue to keep score, and see how race enters into the choices made by the pro-lifers, the media, and whoever.
One is world-famous, and one is, like you say, known. But what I’m asking is, why isn’t the pro-life movement - the Pat Robertsons and the James Dobsons and the Randall Terrys and whoever else - as concerned with the lives of these children as they were with that of Terry Schiavo?
I’ve given two reasons I think come into play. I can’t read minds, but we know that black gets different play from white in this country; is it really a shock that a movement whose leadership and core support is conservative Southerners might simply be less interested in the fate of a black child than that of a white woman?
And is it a shock, as well, that they’ve twice declined to take on a particular kind of case that they can’t pin on one of their traditional whipping boys (activist judges, liberal elitists, etc.) but rather one where their fair-haired boy would have signed the law enabling hospitals to cut short a life that the family was all for preserving?
I don’t think either of these things is a surprise. But surprising or no, I think the leaders of the Religious Right should be held publicly accountable for their choices, same as anyone else.
JFTR: I am not pitting ‘the media’ here. They deserve Pitting for a fair pile of stuff, I’m sure, but that’s one fight I’m not getting into here. Just want to make sure that’s understood.
Those of you who do want to argue the role of the media in this case, go ahead and use this thread; just don’t expect me to get pushed into taking a side.
Well, yeah, but I wasn’t pitting you. I was pitting the Christian right, which spends a lot of time beating the bushes for good cases to pick a fight over - but seems to have taken a pass on this one and its predecessor, for reasons (other than those I’ve given) not readily apparent.
Follow up question…Has BET covered this story?
Here is the section of Texas law providing for physicians to refuse to continue care. Section 166.046 describes the review procedure for the medical or ethics committee. And here is the AMA guidelines to its Code of Ethics on allocation of scarce medical resources, with a particular emphasis on avoiding death or other “extremely poor outcomes,” which policy specifies that " Non-medical criteria, such as ability to pay, age, social worth, perceived obstacles to treatment, patient contribution to illness, or past use of resources should not be considered."
Also, note that none of the stories about this baby talk about the costs or whether the family has insurance. I contend that under the Texas Futile Care Law (as amended to include pediatric cases) health care providers may not consider “ability to pay” when making a decision to suspend medical treatment and that the decision in this case (with which I have no small amount of trouble, for the record), is based solely on preventing the child from suffering further.
Finally, it looks like the “5%” chance of recovery in the cited story is a general figure and old news, possibly applicable prior to her relapse but before her complications set in. According to the Houston Chronicle, Knya has since developed a brain tumor, a flesh-eating disease and multiple organ failure.
That all makes perfect sense, Manhattan, and I personally am for pulling the plug when it is hopeless to continue treatment, but it still doesn’t address the issue of why Terry Schiavo was such a big deal, and these little black babies weren’t.
Can you back this up? I haven’t read anywhere that this is the case here.
I think the analogy is extremely poor, featherlou. As I said, pro-life doesn’t mean that life should always be prolonged by extraordinary means. That is hardly an automatic position.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, most pro-lifers thought she should be allowed to continue living, since the means taken to keep her alive wouldn’t have seemed extraordinary to them. All three of my kids were on nasogastric feeding tubes after they were born, incidentally. They’re happy, healthy children now.
The provision of food and hydration isn’t an extraordinary treatment, IMHO. What would be extraordinary are treatments undertaken long after hope of recovery is gone, or when the suffering engendered cannot be justified in terms of a diminishing hope of recovery.
I don’t want to reopen the debate about Schiavo’s condition, her chances for recovery, or the big family fight there. I just wanted to spell out my thoughts obout what constituted reasonable means to keep someone alive, and what went beyond this.
As I said, we had to contend with these issues in my immediate and extended family, as indeed most families have. And what it all boils down to, really, is that while life is precious, death cannot ever be avoided. It can merely be put off a while.
Er, no. This case and the Schiavo case are evidence. You may assert that they are insufficient evidence, but you may not (honestly) claim that no evidence at all has been offered.
To be honest, I think it’s less of a race issue than a political issue (i.e. a case arising under the Texas law signed by GeeDubya would raise the same hypocrisy issue if the kid was white, black, or purple with green polka dots).
Oh that one’s easy, and I’m a little weirded out that neither side sees it enough to understand the other side’s point of view.
It’s about what a “life” is. To those who wanted to discontinue treatment to Ms. Schiavo, she was dead. No higher brain function, no response to stimuli, etc. She was a breathing, but lifeless, shell which did not contain a human being by the definition one normally uses when discussing a “person.” Further, they believed that her condition was wholly irreversible – that if care were continued, she, to the extent there was a “she” at all, was doomed to continued non-existence, doing nothing at all except consuming resources and causing pain to her husband.
Those who wanted to continue treatment fall into three camps. One camp disagreed with the diagnosis and therefore thought she was not dead. Another disagreed that the diagnosis was permanent. Still another group disagreed that mere loss of higher brain function is “death” – lower brain functions were working just fine, she didn’t need a respirator, etc. With nothing but food and minimal care Ms. Schiavo had a “life” expectancy not materially different from non-injured people of her age and general physical health. By contrast, in the current instance pretty much everybody save the mother agrees that death, by any definition at all, is inevitable and in the near future.
With those differing definitions of what “life” is, it’s no surprise to me that many abortion opponents came believe that care to Ms. Schiavo should be continued. They would fall into the third of those groups and simply have a broader definition of what “life” is than the majority of people. Those from the disabled community who believed that care should have been continued would mostly fall into one of the first two. And with Knya’s death inevitable and soon, it’s also no surprise that none of the groups who advocated continued care for Ms. Schiavo find an interest in this case.
The difference was Terri’s parents and the timeframe. They had years and years to develop media connections and funding connections to fight the court battles with. None of the babies in Texas have even been alive as long as Terri’s parents had to gear up a propaganda machine, let alone the resources.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve been doing some digging through the right-wing/pro-life blogs, and I’ve only come up with two recent articles:
One from Blogs for Terri, and one from the Freep.
I know it’s not a scientific sample by any means, but I’m struck by the cold, actuarial nature of a lot of those comments. To their credit, some of the posters are consistent in their positions about the Schaivo and Dismuke cases. Though I don’t agree with them, I can at least respect that.
On the other hand, it seems like far more of them are basically saying “Parents aren’t married. Bet they’re on welfare. Pull the plug.”
Interesting…
Oh, and for the record, Operation Rescue has yet to see fit to comment on this case.
Now I need to take a shower.
My god, you should hear how I gripe when I have to do an analysis on a piece of legislation in my own area of supposed expertise for my job. Now you want to me to wade through a public act dealing with the medical field, and on my own unpaid time?
The affrontery!
I came in this thread for easy answers, bub. All these years of knowing each other, and you haven’t yet grasped my inherent intellectual laziness? I’m wounded.
Actually, while manhattan brought up some good points, there is also one very large, clear (if contentious) difference. Those who argued for the parents’ side in the Schiavo case were in agreement with a basic principle laid down around 30 years ago: one does not starve to death a person although it is not necessary to perform invasive or extraordinary means (particularly painful ones) merely to prolong life. Now, I am aware that there has been lots of disagreement over the rationale behind that principle. I think that the Schiavo case clearly presents a good cause for the ethicists who initially proposed the “no starvation/dehydration” principle to rethink their arguments and probably come to a more nuanced and less sweeping declaration.
However, the people who oppose starvation/dehydration but do not insist on invasive or painful methods for mere prolongation are not being hypocritical regarding their position on the story in the OP, regardless what color or how poor the child may be.
It is one thing to argue that the “no starvation” rule is too broad or is not particularly useful in today’s technological environment. If anyone wants to revisit the Schiavo case and argue that one all over again, feel free. If anyone wants to castigate the proponents of that rule because one finds the rule flawed, have at it.
However, it is not realistic and it is not fair to create a set of rules to which a group does not adhere and then try to pillory them as hypocrites for not following rules to which they have never assented.