Terri's Tragedy - Another Partisan Slugfest

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week or two, you have no doubt been inundated with the media’s coverage of the Terri Schiavo saga. It’s the latest example how the media can latch on to a relatively obscure story, which having the right ingredients and timing, escalates into a 24 hour a day media frenzy, ultimately propelling the story to one of monumental consequence. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy the Terri Schiavo media frenzy transformed an arbitrary tragedy (there are an estimated 25,000 people in a Persistent Vegetative State, many of whom will have ultimately have their feeding tubes removed) into a legitimate topic of national debate when members of the U.S. Congress, no doubt emboldened by the growing media attention, decided to intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo’s parents.

What followed was a stunning legislative congressional action, prompting national debates about federalism, the separation of powers, Medicare/Medicaid, the sanctity of life, the right to die, living wills and, of course, the whole history of the Terri Schiavo case where, it appears, that every politician and TV pundit has suddenly become a medical expert.

Unfortunately, instead of intelligent, measured and rational discussion, the on-going debate has disintegrated into yet another partisan, ideological, around the clock mud slinging contest riddled with exaggeration, propaganda, misinformation and ad-hominem attacks so sadly characteristic our current state of national discourse. A good portion of the blame belongs to the main stream media, who rarely offer viewers level headed, intelligent pundits who can thoughtfully and truthfully articulate opposing and nuanced viewpoints. Instead viewers are subjected to overtly partisan voices who are willing to distort, lie and over simplify in the name of ideology, thereby continuing the destruction of our collective intellect.

In my opinion, most of the ideological baiting in this controversy has come from conservatives who are consistently sensationalizing the tragedy by regularly employing provocative terms such as “murder”, by distorting truth about Terri Schiavo’s condition and by repeatedly insinuating that Michael Schiavo has been abusive and/or has diabolical ulterior motives.

I’m tempted to rehash all of the individual bits of misinformation and rhetoric but by now it’s been hashed ad nauseam elsewhere and everywhere. But here is the gist of the discourse:

A vocal segment of conservatives are accusing liberals of continuing to foster a “culture of death” because they oppose measures to intervene against the decisions of “activist judges” who would order the “torture and murder” of an innocent young woman. Particularly annoying (and a poorly made analogy) is the oft repeated conjecture that if one were to starve a dog, they would be committing a crime, whereas the “murder” of Terri Schiavo is legally sanctioned. Never mind that most liberals are equally distressed and repulsed at the starvation aspect of this case (more on this later) and are generally only opposed to conservative politicians attempting an end run around the system. I’m also quite sure the judges in question do not “want” Terri Schiavo to die (and especially not by starvation), but being judges they are ethically bound to rule in accordance with the evidence and within the framework of existing law.

For their part, liberals have been very vocal in pointing out the hypocrisy of George Bush and conservatives by alluding to a law passed in Texas requiring the removal of feeding tubes in certain cases and in pointing out the inconsistency of the conservative mantra “to err on the side of life” as applied to issues health care, the death penalty and the Iraq War. While there may be some validity to these observations, such rhetoric does not address the argument at hand and merely serves to agitate public discourse.

At any rate, the whole controversy boils down to two fundamental legal questions: 1) Is Terry Schiavo in a Persistent Vegetative State? 2) Did Terri Schiavo express the wish to refuse medial care should she ever find herself in this condition?

For nearly a decade, these questions have been painstakingly addressed in the Florida court system, which applied all of the appropriate time tested scientific and legal methodologies. The court determined that Schiavo is in a PVS and that she did express a desire to refuse medical care in this scenario. The court also appointed an independent guardian, Jay Wolfson (one of the few rational voices in the resulting cacophony), who spent 30 days with Terri Schiavo and reviewed thousands of pages of court documents. He too came to the same conclusions as did the courts. (Read his report here.)

All the rest of us – every talking head, pundit, self-proclaimed expert, politician, or blogger -- are merely engaging in speculation. Until each one of us obtains advanced medical and legal degrees and spends 30 days clinically evaluating Terri Schiavo, our opinions on those two questions remain uninformed and largely irrelevant. This includes those doctors who have submitted affidavits on the Schindler’s (her parents) behalf, but who have not actually clinically examined Terri Schiavo.

(On question two, I concede that it is impossible to know what a person really wants once they actually find themselves in such a state. Regardless of what one may have said earlier, one’s initial feelings on the matter may reverse. But assuming for a moment the unlikely proposition that Terri Schiavo is minimally conscious; we cannot know if she is content and desperately wishes to be maintained or whether she is suffering terribly and desperately wishes to put an end to it all. If the latter, all those well meaning people holding vigil for Terri Schiavo are actually and ironically praying to continue her suffering. I would think this alone invalidates the "err on the side of life" argument.)

And so I watched in disbelief (live on CSPAN) last Sunday as Republican congressmen intervened and passed bill s.686 requiring a federal judiciary review the Schiavo case. This unprecedented action was based not on a thorough review of the evidence or facts of the case but on sheer speculation, insinuation and hearsay. Its bad enough that the principles of federalism and separation of powers can be cast aside any time the majority party decides it doesn’t agree with the existing legal framework, but to do so without an objective review of the facts is particularly scary.

(It has been said that no party really cares about federalism and the separation of powers when they are in the majority and indeed this argument has been with us since the founding of our nation.)

As it turns out the “Palm Sunday Compromise” congressional intervention had little teeth – a fact that has infuriated both sides of the aisle. Pro- Life conservatives such as Randall Terry of Operation Rescue are incensed that Pro-Life politicians were unable or unwilling to actually legislate a stay which would result in Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube being reinserted. Liberals see this same inaction as further evidence that the whole Palm Sunday congressional session was nothing but a political ploy.

The ironic tragedy of this case is that it is precisely the Pro-Life community’s opposition to any kind of right to die laws that have made necessary the cruel and revolting death by starvation. Thus Pro-Lifers find themselves outraged and holding vigils to prevent a starvation which they themselves have in essence required. The reason pet owners don’t have to starve their terminally ill pets is because, ironically, animals (and criminals) are allowed to die with dignity via medically assisted euthanasia. This aspect of the Schiavo controversy has been underplayed in the media.

Finally, my spouse and I both decided that while we would definitely honor each other’s preference to die were we in Schiavo’s condition, we would acquiesce if the other’s parents were adamantly resolved to keep us alive and if that somehow brought meaning to their lives (delusional or not). The logic being that if we were truly PSV, it really wouldn’t matter anymore what we thought we originally wanted. (The dangerous caveat is that we might really have some minimal level of consciousness that was suffering immensely.)

And so, I sincerely sympathize with Terri Schiavo’s parents and part of me wishes that Michael Schiavo would have simply allowed the Schindlers to continue to care for Terri as it is highly unlikely that she is minimally conscious as evidenced by MRI scans that show her cerebral cortex replaced by spinal fluid. But as it stands, the courts have ruled and working within the established legal framework is the best we can do in mediating these situations.

Unfortunately this family’s personal tragedy has been dragged out into the street for all to see by meddling politicians and organizations who, despite good intentions, have nonetheless turned Terri Schiavo into a political device to advance their ideological cause. And most disheartening, next to the congressional abandonment of reason, objectivity and process, was to see how fast and disgustingly the TV and radio pundits fell into line spouting their partisan nonsense.

One bright spot: Despite the punditry, among regular people, polls show that there may be some backlash against the vocal segment of conservatives and Republican politicians as a large majority disapprove of the governmental interference in this case.

P.S. – For an informative timeline complete with legal documents and statements, click here.

For an informative article about the differences between minimal concsciousness, PVS, comas and brain death and what does it mean, click here.

Galileo Redux - Science and Authority

Over at Reddnight, fellow blogger Chris McCarley posted a follow up to my Galileo and Englightment post below. In the course of relaying some anecdotal examples of people ignoring empirical evidence in favor of party dogma, he included this astute passage:

"Of course, the situation is complicated by the reality that an individual has to decide who or what to trust. To use the Galileo example, very few people can or have actually confirmed the heliocentric model, even if they have looked through a telescope. Most believe it either based on the current dogma or trust in the arguments of experts."

This is an interesting point which begs further discussion. On a basic level, for many people this is precisely the issue. Which authority to trust? No one person can possibly personally confirm every fact, idea, theory and philosophy in the world.

For some, this leads to the notion that science is just another belief system. However, this notion is false. Once the methods of science are understood, it becomes clear that science is not a belief system, but a collection of methods geared to evaluate hypothesis about the objective world.

Unfortunately, most people do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, so while they reflexively believe the majority of scientific facts, they often ignore/suppress whatever facts and theories that are in conflict with their religious, political and ideological beliefs.

But back to the question at hand: I myself have not personally confirmed the heliocentric model, so why do I believe the currently held scientific view that the Sun is the center of our solar system and not the Earth as expert authorities once claimed?

More generally, why do I accept the findings of science orders of magnitude more than I accept “facts” put forth by other authorities and “experts”?

On the most basic level, this trust arises because we live in a world where a lot of everyday evidence exists for concluding that the methods of science (and hence most conclusions) works.

Televisions, cell phones, internal combustion engines, antibiotics and airplanes all validate that scientific assertions such as the theories of electromagnetic waves, thermodynamics, micro-biology and fluid dynamics are true or correct to a large extent. This is particularly reinforcing for things that we cannot see, hear or feel (such as EM waves), but that science tells us exists. Any initial skepticism disappears when a technology comes along that exploits the phenomenon in question, thus proving beyond a doubt that it exists.

Of course, there are many incorrect scientific theories as well, but we also witness in our everyday lives the fact that science is self-correcting. We see this in news stories about new studies replacing conventionally held beliefs from previous studies. [There is also a lot of bad science, particularly in the "soft" sciences. Subsequently, a lot of bad studies are generated causing much confusion, but over a long period of time, science is generally self-correcting]

Science encourages (demands really) that its practitioners challenge and question every currently held theory. No theory is sacred and, in fact, overturning a long held theory just might bring a scientist accolades and fame.

Conversely, arguments from authority produce very little in the way of practical evidence. Not many of us have witnessed genuine miracles, for example. And in the case of many political and religious leaders there is often evidence (perhaps uncovered years later) that outright lies and deception have been employed. Furthermore, we are taught by experience that questioning or challenging authority (political, religious) is taboo – the direct opposite of science.

The resulting dynamic is interesting. While most rational people learn to reflexively trust scientific knowledge, it seems that learning to be skeptical of arguments from other types of authority is a separate skill that is not always realized. That is why so many people suffer from “cognitive dissonance” when integrating the scientific world view with their political and religious beliefs.

Note, that I said “their” political and religious beliefs. It’s easy to dismiss arguments from authority when the authority in question represents an opposing or foreign ideology or belief system.

Relating this back to the current culture war, note how Conservatives and Liberals accept almost blindly their respective party dogmas, while entirely dismissing dogmas of the other side. They vigorously support empirical data that supports their viewpoint, while mysteriously dismissing or minimizing empirical data that conflicts with their viewpoint. Additionally, the previously described impulse to trust science is such that they also tend to create pseudo-scientific institutions that are biased to support their viewpoint.

If education were improved, then perhaps one day the population will be sufficiently educated in the philosophy of science and critical thought such that empirical data (when it can) will always replace arguments from authority regardless of the source or of one's biases. Then, just maybe, we wouldn’t have to be subjected to quite as much painfully bad public discourse of the kind that currently pollutes our TV and radio airwaves.

A Primetime Disgrace

I'm a little bit fired up this story which demonstrates just how far journalistic standards have fallen and how critical analysis and investigatory rigor have completely given way to the ratings game.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the diffusion of knowledge among the population was the only sure way to preserve a free and democratic society. In fact he feared that the United States and its present state of liberty would be "a short lived possession" unless the masses "were enlightened to a certain degree".

Unfortunately by that measure it would seem that we are doomed.

The story in question was aired by ABC Primetime on February 10th. It dealt with a Brazilian man known as "Joao de Deus" or "John of God" and you may recall seeing the previews if you did not actually see the show. This man operates a "healing center" in Brazil where people flock from all over the world to be healed by various means such as forceps inserted in their nose, random cutting of flesh, scraping of the eyeball, etc. As to be expected, a thriving local economy has grown out of this mythology.

Suffice it to say that ABC's report on "John of God" presented him in a non-critical light. They trotted out James Randi, a highly qualified professional debunker with an impressive list of credentials and publications (which they somehow failed to mention), to be the "token" skeptic. In the final edited production ABC gave Randi 19 seconds of air time, despite the fact that Randi had been taped and interviewed for over an hour. Randi even provided video taped proof of how certain tricks, such as inserting the forceps in the nose, were done, but all of that hard evidence was ignored. As Randi himself said:

I was allowed only a token appearance because what I'd provided them with was not in tune with the song they were singing. That 19-second flash was their way of showing the audience that they had tried to present a contrary point of view, in accordance with the "balanced treatment" requirement which they should observe. I was interviewed and videotaped for over an hour, I contributed pertinent observations for the use of the ABC-TV producers and editors, and everything I told them was ignored because it did not suit the needs of the network; they wanted a "gee-whiz-we-just-don't-know-folks" show, and that's what they turned out

Randi's take on the whole sordid affair is presented on his JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) web site.

Also for "balance", ABC brought in Dr. Mehmet Oz, a Harvard educated MD, who just happens to believe in "therapeutic touch", guided imagery, reflexology, and "energy medicine," -- despite no scientific evidence or merit. This says something about the type of show ABC wanted to produce. Oz's (whose credentials were mentioned, hmm) beliefs are far off the mainstream of medical science, yet he was being presented as the "balance". He subsequently concocted fanciful theories to explain how "Jon of God"'s methods might be potentially plausible. This nonsense is undoubtedly lost on most viewers, who believe anything if it sounds scientific. But as Randi explains:

...the scientific approach is to establish that the phenomenon itself exists in humans before you offer theories on how it works. Otherwise, there would be researchers out there developing parallels and philosophies to account for the reality of The Tooth Fairy, for whom there is adequate anecdotal evidence of the same caliber as evidence for these [claims]....

The bottom line is that no actually healed patients were ever produced by ABC, yet viewers were led to believe by insinuation that they existed. Worse, no one was brought forth who had suffered actual damage by this scam artist even though anyone can easily find their stories on the Internet. If ABC had exerted even half of the investigatory zeal reserved for exposes on crooked car mechanics or grocery store meat dating practices, then "Jon of God" would be easily revealed for the charlatan that he is. But that is not what ABC wanted, they wanted ratings. Perhaps understandable (sadly) for a FOX style tabloid special, but for PrimeTime which claims to be a News program it was despicable.

The kicker is that the on-screen reporter, Jon Quinones, submitted himself to a healing treatment:

On-camera host John Quiñones told the audience that he had an inflamed rotator-cuff problem in his right shoulder and had submitted to treatment by John of God as a test of his powers. He was told by the ["Jon of God"] handlers to submit to "invisible surgery," which consisted of merely meditating for two days and following a set of simple instructions - no sex, no pork, no alcohol, and no pepper - and then waiting forty days to see the results. John reported no change in his condition at all, but excused that failure by revealing that he'd not followed the instructions! Why was it that this professional investigative reporter, actively at work on a major media shoot looking into the claims of this charlatan, chose not to follow the instructions he was given, thus providing a convenient excuse for the failure of the "magic"? And why, knowing that Quiñones had made his own test invalid by violating the rules, did the ABC-TV editors and producers still choose to include that event in the program?

What a joke!

Charlatans like "Jon of God" rob people of hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars (many times this amount represents a life-savings) with their false promises. Worse, when the treatment fails, it is often the poor victim's who are left feeling at fault. In the case of "Jon of God", the treatment only worked if followed up by 40 days of fasting, sexual abstinence, etc. -- quite convenient. I once saw a couple racked with guilt because their son had died after faith healer Benny Hinn was unable to "save" their child. Of course, Hinn asserted that this poor couple's faith was not great enough. As a result they were now emotionally as well as financially devastated. The fact that ABC (in effect) condones this criminal behavior is very sad indeed.

I shouldn't surprised at this media incompetence following other such gaffes as CBS 60 Minutes rigging Audi vehicles to falsely demonstrate "unintended acceleration", NBC Dateline rigging trucks with incendiary devices to get them to blow up on side impacts, the New York Times Jason Blair debacle and most recently the infamous "Rather-gate" CBS scandal. The media is our most important tool for disseminating accurate and critically analyzed information. When mass media as an institution starts to fail, it should be very alarming to all.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

Note: I'm not saying that ABC shouldn't have produced this show or that one day seemingly improbable events couldn't have merit (though not in this case). A good skeptic is skeptical of his/her skepticism. The point here is that absolutely no journalistic skills, investigative reporting or critical analysis was brought to bear on this "fluff" story masquerading as a News report.