Excerpts from talk by Moira McQueen, director of Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute, at CCRL Spring luncheon, June 14, 2006.
I have only recently become a member of the CCRL, but I know that, many years ago when something in the media would strike me as being really absurd, I would write a letter to the Globe and Mail – and to get one published in the Globe as many of you realize is not particularly easy – every so often I would get one published and I knew the CCRL was on the ball because I’d immediately hear from Professor Langan congratulating me…for sticking up for Catholic principles.
And Joanne has asked me to talk about the interface of media with bioethics. Of course it’s a huge area and bioethics is taking off, as anyone can tell who reads any newspaper. So I thought the best thing would be to speak to just a few areas.
So much of the coverage, in terms of media, is about the words used in “communications.” Let me start with this quote from Joseph Peeper, whose book on virtue I use when I teach in the theology course I give, and whose writings I find to be extremely cogent. He wrote “Abuse of Language: Abuse of Power” wherein he reminded us of Plato’s long-standing battle with the sophists, whom he calls “those highly-paid and popularly-appointed experts in the art of twisting words, who were able to sweet talk something bad into something good, and to turn white into black.”
And that’s so often how I feel when I read certain things in the media, especially those pertaining to bioethics.
Perhaps the most important area at the moment in bioethics – although they’re all important – is the move towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. And we can see many examples of that, politically, here in Canada, with [then Justice Minister] Irwin Cotler in 2005 and the Liberal government of the time having on its agenda some kind of proposal, to legalize both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as has happened in some European countries.
And in Britain recently there was an attempt to have a bill passed in the House of Lords along these lines and The Tablet had this wonderful headline, which states “Joffe blames Catholics for bill’s defeat” and I thought, I wish I could see that in Canada…
So this particular stand was a reaction to a bill – which, by the way, has only been delayed for six months, not chucked out, so troops will continue to muster on both sides of the issue. On our side Cardinal Murphy O’Connor has been very active and enjoyed a sympathy vote in that he was ill in hospital at the time of the debate and just recovering himself when he was asked to go to one of the media studios in London to talk on radio about this. And apparently the impact of his situation really had a dramatic influence on many, many people.
But the usual things happened in the media reports, beginning with the Tony Glass case way back in the 1990’s, when there was a movement in English law in particular to define “intent” and what exactly that means. Joffe argued that Tony Glass should be taken off life support. He agreed it was direct killing but okay in that instance and wasn’t convinced at all by our side’s arguments and, commenting on the letters that were appearing from the pro-life side in many newspapers including The Times of London, said “The letters come from a relatively small number of deeply-committed Christian worshippers and that the result is a massive political campaign by the Church led by the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff.” Now that was true but he made it sound like a complaint.
And another peer, Lord Hughes, warned against religious fundamentalism, saying “…(the debate) shouldn’t be used to promote a religious view that some seek to impose on others. People should think about where religious extremism takes them. It takes them to the Taliban and we do not want them in this country.” And this was the argument from a peer in the House of Lords dealing with a bill on euthanasia!
Lord Alton in reply did stand up, according to The Times of London, and took a huge exception to that particular statement by Hughes, saying “It was recently suggested in the House that religious believers have no right to impose their views.” But he continued that “In a democracy, no one can impose one’s views; one simply wins or loses an argument.” And I think that’s a fundamental point for those working in bioethics to remember; it really is a war of persuasion and it surprised me that, even at that level, the old canard of religious fundamentalism would be pulled out, yet again.
Mary Warner, who is one of the leading bioethicists in Britain, actually said in a Sunday Times’ interview - and her wording is something we need to be concerned about - “I know I’m really not allowed to say it, but one of the things that would motivate me to die is that I couldn’t see myself hanging on and being such a burden to people. In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one’s family would be considered good, so I don’t see what’s so horrible in the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance. If I was in a nursing home, it would be a terrible waste of money; money that my family could use far better.”
I just laughed at that. Her reasons are suspect, to put it mildly. I like how she slipped in “I know I’m really not allowed to say it…” but “I’m darn sure I’m going to say it anyway.”
So what about euthanasia in this country and the arguments that are presented by the media. Well, I’ll really go back in history to the [Robert] Latimer case because I think some of the media distortions in that regard – and I know just about all of you are familiar with the distortions, quite apart from the case – but it seems that these are the ones that we will be presented with when this particular topic comes up again.
You may remember the famous poll conducted by the Calgary Sun not long after Robert Latimer had been convicted of killing his daughter Tracy, and the poll said that 92 percent of the 500 people who had been polled thought that Latimer was justified in killing his 12-year old daughter. And yet as the author of the article pointed out, the jury that convicted Latimer was 100 percent convinced that, at the very least, what Latimer had done was illegal.
So in light of the difference between the poll and the jury’s decision, the manner that the media presented the ‘facts’ can in fact lead people to different conclusions and I’m concerned about this as the same emotive terms and phrases – talking about ‘compassion’ and ‘mercy’ – suggest that the anti-life arguments haven’t really changed. And the question to us is ‘Are we prepared to deal with that, and how do we point out where the problems are in this debate?’
One of the leading publications at the time managed to report that Robert Latimer was being allowed out on a bond pending appeal and the reporter talked about the entire story without ever once using the word ‘murder,’ which is incredible given the complexities of the case. When other newspapers discussed Tracy Latimer, she was always described in terms of “suffering from” and “afflicted with” and how she was suffering daily seizures, and that she was racked with bed sores. And one newspaper said that Tracy was too disabled to request to die, without stating the opposite truth that she may equally have requested to live! So we see how some people have been lulled into a state of compassion by the misuse of language. This was a very obvious case of media bias, with one side of the coin being presented while the other side was almost totally ignored.
The word “mercy” was commonly used to describe Robert Latimer’s actions – and “alleged murder” – came up even after the trial when there was a documentary made about the case entitled “Mercy on Trial” and MacLean’s Magazine said that “Robert Latimer’s motive was compassion for a child in constant pain” and this was not a suggestion but stated as a fact; perhaps they took Robert Latimer’s word for that.
In the same vein, you may remember the Susan Smith case, a very sad one where a young woman killed her two young children by driving her car into a lake, and the media called it right, saying that there was something particularly wrong in that situation. When she showed up at the courthouse someone yelled at her “child murderer!” I’m not saying that’s how people should behave in that situation but it shows how people perceive things. But apparently when Robert Latimer’s action came to light, his friends and neighbours took up a collection for his defence! So the difference outlined here, in these contrasting examples, is that perhaps society sees killing one’s child as morally wrong but when killing one’s child who is disabled, it’s not at all seen as morally wrong.
And the way the media is presenting these cases is suggesting that there is a line being drawn here, that implies that if one’s child is handicapped their termination is seen to be compassionate and the act is to be forgiven. So if anyone of us here have connections with those who are physically handicapped in particular, we do have reason to fear this trend in society.
The media pass themselves off as neutral and simply “raising the question” of whether euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be allowed, for the purpose of “discussion.” So in this vein one radio show had a program asking if it were every okay to kill a human with a severe disability. One caller, when she finally got through, said she had a child with a disability and she found the entire question to be totally offensive, and didn’t the radio show host realize that such an action would be discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Put another way, would the question be ever entertained, “is it ever okay to kill a woman” or “to kill Scottish people”?
It becomes clear once we substitute some other term but in light of that particular case it’s amazing that people feel justified in even posing and debating that sort of question. It shows how people are influenced by the media’s agenda. And the media will present disputed facts as truth. In many cases if we’re not attentive and aware of the possibility that we’re being set up, we can find ourselves buying into the agenda. So many of Latimer’s lawyers presented Tracy’s apparent suffering as his motivation for ending her life as if it was fact.
The actual facts are stunning. He carried out the act in secret; he burned the evidence; moved his daughter’s body [to make it appear to be a natural death]; denied any knowledge as to the cause of death initially and attempted to have his daughter’s body cremated, to avoid an autopsy. All those facts were mostly ignored in the media, although some media did publish them. So the deception appears to have been carried out to avoid punishment and to make the situation seemmorally okay.
Again, facts are presented as truths and if we don’t look behind them, we can be lulled into believing that the story being presented by the media is actually the truth and what is going on, or has gone on. There’s also the media’s sin of omission. The newspapers, for the most part, didn’t tell us that Tracy Latimer had been living with assisted care for almost three months leading up to this so-called ‘mercy killing’. This is not to suggest that looking after a child like Tracy would be anything but a difficult task for anyone. We all realize that but in this case the action undertaken by Latimer couldn’t be ascribed to parent burnout; help was available and had been used.
The fact that Tracy attended a school program during the day and was integrated into the school system so, apart from also being gone from the home for a good part of the day, she was also doing things and there were ways she was participating in society. None of that was made readily apparent by the media, which suggests that there was a deliberate picture being painted of Tracy having no ‘quality of life,’ or in other words, the inference was made that her life was really not worth living. And therefore whatever her father did to her was somehow justified on that basis.
And this generated a debate, including one between two radio hosts, around the topic of “when is killing people with disabilities moral!” And I really wondered why they were even entertaining the question. When discussing morality, these loaded questions should be recognized for what they are, and even their discussion should be questioned.
Certainly Tracy Latimer was depersonalized by the media in talking about her disability – some said she was tube-fed, which was not true – and the false portrayal of her as a mass of suffering, saying that she had bed sores, which was also not true. How could she be bed-sore ridden when she wasn’t in bed all day; she was at school.
Interestingly enough in terms of how biased media coverage of bioethics’ issues can affect actions, Latimer did what he did just a few days after the Sue Rodriguez decision came down and that’s a connection that many of us missed. If Robert Latimer’s action was influenced by the media coverage, and I can’t see how one can’t be – one way or the other – he would have been aware of the decisions made in the Rodriguez case and the fact that just about every media outlet in the country was in favour of Sue Rodriguez being allowed to have an assisted suicide. How the media influences the debate and perhaps even actions arising from the coverage, operates at many different levels.
Not long after Robert Latimer killed Tracy, there was another sad incident – I think in Halifax – where a woman who was a single parent with a 15-year old, severely disabled son, and she with her son in tow went to her parked car, turned on the engine and subsequently died. It may be that any suicide or report of a suicide, assisted or not, has a replicating or catching effect. So I’m suggesting that people can be highly influenced by emotional media coverage, coming to believe that a disabled life is not worth living.
Not all of the outcomes of the Latimer case were entirely negative to the pro-life cause. Some of the responses from groups for the disabled were loud and clear against the action and The Edmonton Journal ran a story following the case about the need for greater support for families with disabled members. There were many letters to the editor from people against Latimer’s action and in the secular media, even The Globe and Mail was very careful about its use of language at that point and actually included an editorial at the time supporting the right-mindedness – not the rightness – of the judgement passed in the Latimer case, when he was in fact jailed for ten years…
We need to approach media reports with great caution when they are covering news about these topics. Their tendency to use emotional language and pick and choose the facts they will highlight can both distort what we learn about these topics, and create support for an anti-life mentality.
1