Mercy in Florida Two weeks ago Wesley J. Smith wrote in these pages about the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Clearwater, Florida, woman whose husband wants her dead. Unfortunately for her, Michael Schiavo is also his wife’s legal guardian, and with the help of his creepy right-to-die lawyer and a compliant Florida judge, he prevailed in a court battle with Terri’s parents over the removal of her feeding tube–this, despite Michael’s manifest conflicts of interest. Since his wife’s brain injury in 1990, Michael has fathered a child by another woman (now expecting their second child) whom he refers to as his fiancée and plans to marry once Terri dies. Rather than pay for his injured wife’s therapy–as he promised a malpractice jury he would do–he has spent substantial amounts of the money that jury awarded her on litigation to have her food and water tube removed. The argument that she would want this is basically that he says so.
It now turns out the headline on Smith’s article–“No Mercy in Florida”–was inaccurate. Last week the Florida legislature passed “Terri’s Law,” empowering the governor to intervene in “nutrition and hydration” cases under a limited number of circumstances. These include cases where the “patient has no written advance directive” and where “a member of that patient’s family has challenged the withholding of nutrition and hydration.” To the fury of Michael Schiavo and a whole host of bien-pensant but uninformed liberal agitators–everyone from the ACLU, to the AARP, to Laurence Tribe–Governor Jeb Bush did issue a stay on October 21, and Terri Schiavo is again being fed and hydrated, awaiting the appointment of an independent guardian to advise the court on her interests.
Many of those now sputtering at the legislature and governor have a remarkably loose grasp of the facts of the case. All they seem to know is that conservative pro-lifers at the grass-roots level were ardently pleading Terri’s case and that someone named Bush heard their pleas. On this basis, they have swung into action. For instance, the state director of the American Association of Retired Persons told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, “Our members tell us that [medical self-determination] is a very important issue to them. . . . They’re telling us they are very disturbed to think they could sign a living will or do not resuscitate order and have it overridden by the legislature.” But of course the whole point of the case–and of Terri’s Law–is that she didn’t sign any such documents. And the more one knows of her husband, the less inclined one is to take his word about what she would have wanted. Perhaps the AARP should be reassuring its members and dispelling their mistaken impressions, instead of fanning their fears.
If it were not a misleadingly named partisan lobby, the ACLU for its part might have intervened on Terri’s behalf, rather than her husband’s. Perhaps they would have if they had known that liberal disability activists and not just right-to-lifers were pleased to see the Florida legislature act. Or perhaps if they had been aware that Terri’s husband had prevented a priest from giving her last rites, lest by swallowing communion she prove that she might be able to survive without tube-feeding. Of course, that assumes the group cares a whit about civil liberties.
But enough about the critics. The lawmakers and governor of Florida rose to the occasion. Wesley J. Smith, in a follow-up article on our website last week, quoted Terri’s elated lawyer, Patricia Anderson, who told him, “Every day that Terri Schiavo is alive is a good day.” And, he added, “for those who believe in the sanctity and equality of human life, October 21, 2003, was a very good day indeed.”
The Case of the Missing News Service
October 16 was an important news day for Muslims and Jews. Not that you could tell from reading Reuters.
The address of Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to 57 nations at the Organization of the Islamic Conference–in which he obsessed over the hidden influence of the Jews on world affairs–was beamed all over the globe by hundreds of news media on the day it took place. But Reuters didn’t carry the speech. There was nothing on their website about the OIC at all on the 16th, and at first only a tiny mention (which we saw on Forbes.com), with this interesting description of Mahathir’s anti-Semitic message:
That’s a unique angle. Hands up, everyone who even knew that Putin attended the speech.
The next day, Reuters’ summation was titled “Islamic Nations End Summit, Temper Iraq Stance.” Their description of the speech:
Mahathir, who retires on October 31 after 22 years in power, told Muslim delegates to push for peace after decades of conflict with Israel in a typically blunt speech that included jibes about the influence of Jews over Western powers.
A quick review of one of Mahathir’s “jibes:”
Later that afternoon, after many world leaders had denounced the speech, Reuters discovered this new angle, in an article titled “Mahathir Speech on Jews Stirs Storm in West.” (There’s no mention of Putin in it. All eyes must have gotten tired of looking at him.)
One has to wonder: Where was Reuters when the “storm” descended? Is their bias so heavy-handed that they no longer report on anti-Semitic and anti-Western speeches by Muslims until after the world protests? Perhaps their motto, “Know. Now.” needs a bit of tweaking: We recommend “Know. Not.”
Temperatures in Hell May Fall Below 32
The most notorious Pulitzer in history–for Walter Duranty’s coverup of Stalin’s crimes–may be retracted. Across America, longtime New York Times critics like THE SCRAPBOOK choked on their Cheerios last Thursday upon seeing this headline: “Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30’s, Consultant Says.”
The story continued in the same astonishing vein: “A Columbia University history professor hired by The New York Times to make an independent assessment of the coverage of one of its correspondents in the Soviet Union during the 1930’s said yesterday that the Pulitzer Prize the reporter received should be rescinded because of his ‘lack of balance’ in covering Stalin’s government.”
But wait, there’s more: “In his report to The Times, [Columbia history professor Mark von Hagen] described the coverage for which Mr. Duranty won the Pulitzer–his writing in 1931, a year before the onset of the [Ukraine] famine–as a ‘dull and largely uncritical recitation of Soviet sources.'”
The only false note: Executive editor Bill Keller preposterously compared the potential retraction of the prize to “airbrushing history” Soviet style. Fine. We’ll happily settle for an asterisk in the Pulitzer listings.
