New York Times‘ Biased “Aid in Dying” Bunkum

I have long ago given up on the media fairly — or even accurately — reporting on the assisted suicide movement. Most stories exhibit some or all of the following bias methods:

  1. Adopt the advocacy lexicon of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement.
  2. Center the narrative around a man who “just wants to die,” rather than an event, e.g. actual news.
  3. Word engineering by redefining terms and blurring moral distinctions to make reasoned ethical analysis more difficult.
  4. Only present the perspective of pro-assisted suicide activists.
  5. If an opponent of assisted suicide is quoted, make it a Catholic priest–or better yet, a bishop–to imply that religion is the only reason to oppose. Don’t give actual public policy reasons for rejecting assisted suicide.
  6. Omit details on how the suffering person can be helped without being killed. 
  7. Pretend assisted suicide has worked without a hitch in Oregon and wherever else it has been tried. 
  8. Fail to report the astonishing levels of abandonment and abuse unleashed by assisted suicide/euthanasia in Europe.
  9. Pretend the movement is experiencing a ground swell of public support, gaining momentum, etc..
  10. Threaten dire efforts at suicide because assisted suicide isn’t legal.
  11. Ignore all mention suicide prevention services that could help transform a desire to die into a desire to keep on living. 

Today’s New York Times–a cover story, no less, byline Eric Eckholm (who seems to have the NYT’s culture war beat, an area criticized by the paper’s public editors for biased reporting)–follows the usual formula almost to a tee. Using the numbering above, let’s analyze, shall we?

NUMBER 1, CHECK: The language bias starts with the headline, and continues throughout the “story:”

‘Aid in Dying’ Movement Takes Hold in Some States

The story described aid in dying and why, supposedly, it isn’t suicide:

​​Giving a fading patient the opportunity for a peaceful and dignified death is not suicide, the group says, which it defines as an act by people with severe depression or other mental problems.

There is no rebuttal to this assertion by opponents.

Aid in dying is an advocacy, not a descriptive term, chosen after much polling and focus group testing by the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement to move its agenda forward. It pretends that terminally ill people can’t commit suicide because they would want to live, but for their condition, and that if a doctor supplies an overdose it is just a medical treatment.

In past legalization attempts, such as in California–and in the pending legislation in Quebec–aid in dying was active euthanasia. 

NUMBER 2, CHECK: The “story” centers around Robert Mitton, who “just wants to die,” about his plans for suicide because he has serious heart disease and considers a right to help in suicide “a basic right.” (U.S. Supreme Court already ruled 9-0 that it is not.)

NUMBER 3, CHECK: The story redefines language–see “aid in dying” discussion above–and blurs the crucial distinction between dying naturally after refusing life-extending medical treatment. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled long ago that refusing treatment is not the same thing as assisted suicide.

NUMBERS 4 AND 5, CHECK: Three people were interviewed for the story–Barbara Coombs Lee, head of Compassion and Choices, Mitton, and his sister who “respects” the decision to commit suicide.

A Catholic bishop from New Mexico is quoted from a speech. In that way, no chance to give a quote about what might be done in this situation to help the man short of killing. No specifics for reasons to oppose other than religious are provided.

NUMBER 6, CHECK: The word “hospice” is mentioned, but no details are given how that truly beneficent medical intervention keeps seriously ill heart disease patients comfortable and socially connected. And certainly, no interviews about successful hospice cases that would undercut the story’s false premise that the choice facing Mitton is dying in agony or suicide.

NUMBER 7, CHECK: Assisted suicide in Oregon is presented as working without a hitch. Not true. For example, there is no mention of Barbara Wagner, who was denied life-extending chemotherapy by the state’s rationed Medicaid program–but offered payment for assisted suicide.

NUMBER 8, CHECK: There is utterly no mention of the ever-increasing euthanasia horrors in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland–or how the same things could happen here should our culture widely embrace the assisted suicide movement’s policy agendas.

NUMBER 9, CHECK: The headline and story work hard to give the impression that there is a popular demand for legalizing assisted suicide. Not true. It doesn’t even register in the Pew Poll’s list of “Top Policy Priorities.”

Moreover, only three states have formally legalized assisted suicide, not five, as in the story. The Montana Supreme Court’s supposed legalization court ruling is very muddled and still subject to differing interpretations. New Mexico’s recent decision is only that of a trial judge, with an appeal surely pending–also not mentioned by the reporter. 

NUMBER 10, CHECK: Mitton threatens to kill himself with household chemicals.

NUMBER 11, CHECK: No mention of suicide prevention. In this regard, see my First Things piece, published yesterday.

Had Mitton or Coombs Lee written this as an opinion piece, these biases would be understandable. But in a supposed news story? No.

Eckholm’s story has all the earmarks of a plant with the reporter diligently following the formula he was handed by issue activists.  All too typical, these days.  

Wesley J. Smith — Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More