What's the score?

The sports section is still safe. It is, in some ways, the last bastion of reality-based journalism.

Turn to the sports pages and there you can read the unambiguous results of a sporting event. You will find the final score and statistics for any given contest. Sports writers may inject into their stories a bit of personal opinion and local sympathy, but whatever biases they might have, the facts of the game are never in dispute. A sports writer may detest Bobby Knight and may say so explicitly in his story, but he won't therefore go on to question whether it is in fact true that Texas Tech has advanced to the Sweet 16 of the men's NCAA Tournament.

Contrast this with the alleged "hard" news sections of the newspaper. Here the facts are rarely stated as plainly or as confidently as "Texas Tech 71, Gonzaga 69." Instead, all claims are treated as equally valid by virtue of the fact that someone is claiming them. News reporters consider it their responsibility to quote these claims accurately, not to evaluate them against any notion of knowable reality or anything as seemingly objective as a scoreboard.

Imagine trying to update your brackets for the NCAAs if your only source of information were, say, members of the White House Press Corps: "Texas Tech supporters were claiming victory Sunday after their regional quarterfinal game against Gonzaga. In Spokane, however, proponents of Gonzaga disputed this claim, noting that their team's point total was equal to that of Kentucky's and greater than that of Utah's, and that both of these teams are advancing to the next round."

It is sometimes said, in rants like this against the plague of he-said/she-said journalism, that news reporters behave like they're covering a tennis match. But the real problem is that he-said/she-said journalists are nowhere near as responsible as sports writers. Sports reporters, first and foremost, have a duty as indifferent arbiters of the facts. That's a duty that hard news journalists have long since abandoned.

The paper I work for today is running a Q&A from the Associated Press about "the facts" of the Terry Schiavo case. One of the questions asks if Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. The Q&A does not provide an answer -- it provides instead two, mutually exclusive answers: Some doctors say she is, but her parents' doctors say she isn't. That's not a Q&A, that's a Q&Q. "Who are we too say?" is not an answer.

The Schiavo case demonstrates the problem of partisan epistemology. We now have "red facts" and "blue facts." Newspapers -- hoping not to upset either faction of their potential circulation -- have no intention in taking sides in such disputes. Thus two competing sets of claims, two very different sets of facts, two opposing narratives, are treated as equally valid. News reporters, unlike sports reporters, feel no responsibility to check the scoreboard, or even to acknowledge that there is a scoreboard. They tend to deny the possibility that a scoreboard might even exist.

In the case of Terry Schiavo there is such a scoreboard, and what it tells us is nowhere near as murky and ambiguous as the AP's Q&Q or CNN's vapid, incurious coverage would suggest. The facts of the matter have been hashed out, again and again and again, in court.

Congress and President Bush, like the absurd hypothetical Gonzaga fans above, would prefer that the facts were other than they are. They have, therefore, declared by legislative fiat that the scoreboard be reset to zero and that the game be replayed. Here, however, the sporting analogy breaks down. If the Red Raiders and Bulldogs were to replay their game, the result might be different. But the facts of the Schiavo case will not change, no matter how many times these facts are replayed and reviewed.

Dahlia Lithwick summarizes this congressional battle with the facts of the case in a must-read Slate article:

This congressional authority to simply override years of state court fact-finding brings with it other superpowers ...

Members of Congress have apparently also had super-analytical powers conferred upon them, as well. Senate Majority Leader, and heart surgeon, Bill Frist felt confident last week -- after reviewing an hour of videotape -- in offering a medical diagnosis of Schiavo's condition, blithely second-guessing the court-appointed neurologists who evaluated her for days and weeks. His colleagues are similarly self-appointed neurological experts. Years of painstaking litigation, assessment, and evaluation by state courts are dismissed by Tom DeLay as the activist doings of a "little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida." Only the most extraordinary levels of congressional hubris could allow a group of elected citizens to substitute their personal medical, legal and ethical judgments for those of the doctors, judges and guardians who have been intimately involved with this heartbreakingly sad case for years.

The facts of the Schiavo case are indeed "heartbreakingly sad." But just because they are so deeply sad does not mean we have the power to change them. Congress, with all of its power -- even combined with all the power it can usurp from the judicial branch -- cannot make this poor woman talk, or wake, or think again.

Comments

[Dave Lartigue]

It is interesting to note that the same party which strongly opposes single-payer healthcare because they feel the government shouldn't interfere in peoples' health care are eager to essentially step in and tell a group of people how a single person MUST be cared for. As others have noted, Congress, in its haste to use powers it doesn't have, have also made no provision for PAYING for this care they insist must be taken. This is the worst kind of bureaucratic interference that the Republicans supposedly deplore, and yet they are cheering for it. Now that they've embraced these shenanigans, decided that ethics rules don't apply to them, love deficit spending, and enjoy military excursions to foreign lands, what exactly does "Conservative" mean these days?

[Mary]

How can you say this is unambiguous? First there's the semantics of how to define a "vegetative state" when every case is different and how to know if it's "persistent" without being able to predict the future - there have been miracle recoveries before. At least the definition of "alive" is simple: she is definitely that.

But that leaves the moral question of when it's okay to end a life. It's not even clear to me that having the person's permission makes this okay -- it's not as if assisted (or even unassisted) suicide is a settled issue. But in this case, we don't have her permission. We have her husband's permission, and his word that it's what she would have wanted. But her parents deny it. Why should he get to kill their daughter? How do you weigh the relative importance of spouse and parents when we can't even really know what kind of marriage it was?

Even if her medical state could be unambiguously classified (and medicine is rarely that clear-cut) and even if the law gave explicit instructions on what to do with someone in that state, there remains the question of whether it's a good law...

[halle]

Mary,

Actually, we do know what kind of marriage it was. The courts have consistently found that it was a good marriage and that others should only be so lucky as to have someone like Michael caring for them after such a tragedy. Chris Reeve with the best care money could buy died of a bed sore; Schiavo has never had one in 15 years. But of course you haven't read the opinions. You don't know the science, the law, the medicine. You think it's just fine to substitute your uninformed opinions for those of people who've spent years determining the facts. Also, it's not her husband's permission. The courts independently found that that SHE wanted the tubes disconnected. It's not just his testimony; others testified that she'd told them, after seeing others connected to feeding tubes, that she'd never want that. Try reading the Florida courts opinions on this. Read what the guardian ad litum, appointed by Jeb Bush, had to say.

As for your question of whether its a good law -- well, now we've really broken through. At least you admit you and the rest of the radicals flogging this issue don't believe in the rule of law.

[PSoTD]

Although I understand the point of the comparison, I wouldn't rely too heavily on sports page journalism as a bastion of reality-based journalism. Your comparison of the scores as reporting is like saying Bush beat Kerry in the election, or HB 45 was passed, or we attacked Iraq. Reporting the undeniable. But everything that falls beyond the simple affirmative or negative reporting in sports is subject to the same kind opinion-based "analysis" and "report what he said, she said" format that we see in the paper's front section.

It's just that the results of it aren't nearly as dire for the nation.

[Tally]

What news reporters don't do sometimes is follow a story where it takes them. Oh, they can report Red 52, Blue 48. Or, Today Texas A&M beat Vanderbilt by 538 points (er, I mean, votes). They can go to the shot clocks with the best of them. They won't ask the tough questions. Sports reporters have largely performed admirably in their investigation of the steroid scandal. But when faced with the reason why Red checkmated Blue and what it did with Blue's pawns once they were captured, they aren't involved. They put on what the Red Queen and the Blue Lance request. Hard news is called hard for a reason, because it takes sacrifice and hard work, but it's very worthwile, honest.

[hilzoy]

Mary: Hallie is right that it wasn't her husband's decision to withdraw the feeding tube, but the judge's. Also, legally this is not assisted suicide; it's the withdrawal of treatment in accordance with what the court has determined to be Terri Schiavo's wishes. If you had, say, cancer, and you were offered some treatment that would be really ghastly, but might raise your chance of survival from 5 to 6%, say, you would have the right to turn it down. All adults do. If a doctor acted in accordance with your wishes, she would not be "helping you to commit suicide", but respecting your right to decide what is done with your body.

In this case, Terri Schiavo obviously can't say what she wants, but the courts have found that there is clear and convincing evidence that she would not have wanted this treatment, and this decision has been appealed all the way to the FL Supreme Court and has been upheld at each step. Respecting those wishes, and removing treatment she would, according to the evidence, have refused is not assisting in suicide.

Oh dear. Sorry to respond to this post so un-on-topically, but I am deeply curious--do you intend to continue the Left Behind readthrough? Because I was enjoying that, vastly, and if you have stopped, I do want to know.

[Sand]

Actually, the Left Behind page is the one that my Slacktivist shortcut goes to. I love it dearly as well.

The great irony of this situation is if Michael Schiavo was starving his lame dog to death, he would soon find himself in jail with a fine from the ASPCA. It is safer to be his dog than to be his wife.

If you don't feed a sick person food and water, he dies.
If you don't feed a healthy person food and water, he dies.

Food and water aren't extranneous medical treatments. They are basic care for every human being.

When people are talking about the "Right to Die" they are normally talking about death by lethal injection. Or in the case of most situations where people need to "pull the plug" the person cannot breathe on their own or circulate their own blood without intervention. But never has it been heard of that a person should die from lack of food and water.

What I find even more moronic is the number of "experts" who say that death by starvation is "relatively painless."

[sable_twilight]

How can you say this is unambiguous? First there's the semantics of how to define a "vegetative state" when every case is different and how to know if it's "persistent" without being able to predict the future

You know, if you want to question the declarations of neurologists, might I suggest that you actually go to medical school and become a neurologist yourself? Then you might see the stringent requirements they have for declaring a "persistent vegetative state." This is not a group of arm chair physicians with not medical training deciding some thing based on news sound bites and emotional appeals. These are people who had dedicated their lives to understanding how the human body, and the brain in particular, work. And they have 15 years worth of documentation in this case

Sorry, but brain tissue simply does not grow back. Or at least will not grow back without some extensive developments in stem cell research, something the that the Bushies and the right to lifers who want to force Terri Schiavo to be kept alive, have put major road blocks to.

Think about this for a moment; Not only have Bushies and the people who want to insist Terri Schiavo be kept alive have slashed Medicaid, something to help pay for Terri Schiavo care, put restriction on medical malpractice suits, the same sort of suit that helped afford, Terri Schiavo care, and put up barriers to declaring bankruptcy from medical expense bills, something Michael Schiavo will likely have to declare after spending so much money taking care of Terri Schiavo, but they also have put numerous limits on stem cell reseach, research the could have potentially benefited Terri Schiavo, and wish to enact more.

You know I would more for and sympathetic of their zealous attempts at preserving her live if these people would actually follow through with action a that actually supports their position.

Personally I do agree that having her die of starvation and dehydration is cruel, but I also feel keeping her alive is even more cruel. It's funny that we treat our pets better than we are permitted to our family. Any animal in this condition would have been humanely euthanized long ago.

What is truly ironic is that the cause of Terri Schiavo's vegetative state was due to a brain aneurysm brought on by bulimia.

[drieux just drieux]

Hum... let's see... The US Supreme Court ruled that non-custodial father's do not have standing to litigate for their children. Now congress has decided that there is a desperate need to make sure that someone other than the Husband makes the decisions about what goes on between a husband and wife.

Does one detect the typical male bashing of the so called radical femiNazi's in this?

What I also find amusing is that the 'pro life' are whining about one unpleasant death but have been patently silent on such ugly issues as killing information containers while conducting information extractions, in Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib... Not to mention the usual tacit approval of all the rest of the 'collateral damage'.

And now have to rally to protect one vegetative patient merely because there is still someone in the family with a credit rating willing to pay the bills... Is this the wrong time to remind folks about Governor "W" and the compassionate conservativism under texas law that made sure that hospitals were required to wait ten days before discharging vegetative patients when none of the family had the credit rating to go on paying the bills... Or would that be almost like pointing to the current bankruptcy bill that no longer allows 'massive medical expense' as an excuse to go into chapter 13 bankruptcy...

So yes. It is such a shame that the only legal remedy is that if one can not pull the trigger one's self - that all that can lawfully be allowed is that one is taken off of life support systems and left, Ironically, in the hands of God....

But I guess the NeoEvangelicals have no faith in God... and are so fearful that they will die and meet their judgement...

[C.B.]

about first part of article:
Maybe that's why so many people don't pay attention to the news. It's fun being a sports fan. It's frusterating to be a political junkie.

[willie]

Food and water aren't extranneous medical treatments. They are basic care for every human being.

actually, if you knew anything about the details of the case, you'd know that the supreme court has ruled that food and water supplied via a feeding tube is classified as a medical treatment that can be refused. it's not as if terri is asking for food and being denied.

What I find even more moronic is the number of "experts" who say that death by starvation is "relatively painless."

death by starvation is not painless in most cases, of course. on the other hand, since terri schiavo can't feel pain, or in fact anything, death by starvation for her will be entirely painless. the point is that she had previously expressed a desire not to be kept alive by a feeding tube, so the tube is being withdrawn. to put her to death by lethal injection would be euthanasia, which would be a completely different issue.

The point is that she had previously expressed a desire not to be kept alive by a feeding tube, so the tube is being withdrawn.

This is an issue of debate. Why would Michael Schiavo wait 8 years and suddenly "remember" that his wife said that she would not want to be kept alive by feeding tube?

Since terri schiavo can't feel pain, or in fact anything, death by starvation for her will be entirely painless.

Apparently, this is not part of the scope of debate for this case. Whether or not she feels pain was not a consideration - it was if her husband has the legal right to not feed her.

As far as I can tell, there is universal consensus that she is able to express some reaction to the world outside of her. Whether or not it is meaningful interaction is subject to debate, but she does respond to outside stimuli, including pain. And this is according to Michael Schiavo as a sworn testimony on a jury trial, November 5, 1992.

Q. And while you're doing that, do you talk to her?

A. Yes, I am talking to her right now telling her it's okay.

Q. She doesn't like that very much?

A. No, she doesn't. She does feel pain.

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/feb/article345.html

[R. Mildred]

Your link doesn't work anon.

The quote you used also seem wildly out of context (or the context is so incredibly well obfuscated that it makes the quote make little sense), what was being done to her that caused her pain? how did micheal know she felt pain? How can he be giving testimony whle at the same time talking to her "now" and telling her it's okay in anyway other than a strictly mental/spiritual/metaphorical way? And, last but not least, what qualifications does Micheal have to diagnose whether Terri has the mental and neurological capacity to feel pain, or to even judge whether her reactions are anything other than random muscle spasms and twitches?

[spencer]

Why would Michael Schiavo wait 8 years and suddenly "remember" that his wife said that she would not want to be kept alive by feeding tube?

Uh, he didn't. When Terri first entered the PVS, Michael decided to go to nursing school so he could care for her. It was in nursing school that he realized her condition was hopeless.

For years, he thought she could be "saved." From what I've read, Terri's wishes were expressed in the context of being in a situation where there was no hope of recovery. Michael did not initially realize that this situation was exactly that. When he did, he acted in accordance with her wishes.

But I really don't know why I'm wasting keystrokes on you, considering the gleeful nature in which people on your side of this issue have taken to spreading lies and slanders about a man they don't know, in a situation most of them have never experienced.

[marble]

But never has it been heard of that a person should die from lack of food and water.

Removal of feeding tubes (or prohibiting their insertion in the first place) happens every day in America. There are lots of people who don't want to be kept alive that way.

[the other michael]

the posts of the "religious" right crowd here reveal a breathtaking combination of willful ignorance and pretension to omniscience, not to mention hateful meanness to suffering strangers in the name of their own sense of righteous "mercy".

In particular there's Anonymous at 11:39 am. After a typical vicious swipe at the husband, there's
If you don't feed a sick person food and water, he dies.
If you don't feed a healthy person food and water, he dies.

Food and water aren't extranneous medical treatments. They are basic care for every human being.

Followed almost immediately by:
...Or in the case of most situations where people need to "pull the plug" the person cannot breathe on their own or circulate their own blood without intervention.

Um, if you deny a person, sick or healthy, the intake of breath, they die. Same if you stop their heart.

Oh, and anon, as has been pointed out, the reason the actual experts--ironic quotes or no--in neurology, see her demise as "relatively painless." is (to quote this link from the Lithwick article) "the part of her brain that experiences pain is unlikely to be functioning."

You or I, or Ms. Schiavo 16 years ago, would of course experience pain in dying of hunger. But the part of her that could--the part that was in any meaningful sense Terry Schiavo--died long ago.

To put it in religious terms, what lies in the hospice in Florida may still be one of god's creatures, but what made her human, and thus created in God's image, has long since left this plane.

But beyond any of this epistemology is this: This is a tragedy for a family and a legal matter for the Florida courts. It is in no possible way your business, or mine; and certainly not Tom Delay's.
m