On June 25th, the Associated Press distributed a story about a “right to die” court decision in Germany.  It ran under the headline of  “Germany: Assisted suicide OK if patient consents.”  The content of the headline alone should have rung some alarm bells, since the headline implies something was done to “the patient” who gave consent for it to be done.  Obviously, suicide – assisted or not – is allegedly an act engaged in by the individual him or herself.  If it’s done to them, with or without consent, it’s something else entirely.

As the short article reveals, the actions and ruling being described have nothing at all to do with assisted suicide, except for the fact that the AP attached the label to the ruling and the story:

BERLIN — Germany’s Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling that an assisted suicide can not be punished if it is carried out based on a patient’s prior request.

The court on Thursday acquitted a lawyer who had counseled his client in 2007 to cut the tube feeding her mother, who had been in a non-responsive coma for five years. A lower court had handed the lawyer a nine-month suspended sentence.

The high court said the then 71-year-old woman had expressed the wish not to be kept alive under such circumstances in 2002 before falling into the coma.

German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger welcomed the ruling as a major step toward respecting an individual’s free will.

Wesley Smith at Secondhand Smoke was up and crying “foul” about this example of “media incompetence” within 24 hours (excerpt):

That isn’t assisted suicide!  The German court allows patients to refuse unwanted medical treatment, a different matter factually, ethically, and in the ultimate cause of the patient’s death.

The Associated Press dominates the framing and phrasing of stories that get printed and broadcast nationally.  Many newspapers have “downsized” their reporting staff and have come to rely even more heavily on the Associated Press for content.

Nevertheless, I think it’s worth pointing out that some prominent news outlets/services – that don’t rely on the AP – got the story right.  The New York Times headline for their story read “German Court Liberalizes Rules for Right to Die Cases.”  Even UPI got it right with its story “German court decides right-to-die case.”

Readers of this blog might remember that the Associated Press has had multiple problems with accuracy covering “right to die,” “assisted suicide,” and other related topics of interest to NDY.  The organization’s track record of correcting mistakes of substance is abyssmal.

To be fair the AP did issue a correction for this story.  How long was that correction in coming?  A day?  Two days?  Try a week.

On July 2nd – one week after the original misreported story was distributed to tv and radio newsdesks along with newspaper desks – the AP issued a “correction,”  and taking a week to do that falls into the “too little, too late” category.  FWIW, here is the correction, which probably hasn’t been read or reported in every venue that the original article was featured:

Correction: Germany right-to-die story

The Associated Press
Friday, July 2, 2010; 2:17 PM

BERLIN — In a story June 25 about a right-to-die case, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Germany’s top criminal court legalized assisted suicide. The court didn’t rule on the issue of assisted suicide. The case involved a woman in a vegetative coma who was being kept alive through an intravenous feeding tube, though not terminally ill. The court overturned the attempted manslaughter conviction of a lawyer who had told the woman’s daughter she could remove the tube from her mother. The woman had previously said she did not want to be kept alive under such circumstances.

Maybe I’m being too hard on the AP.  Given the fact that they generally don’t acknowledge errors of substance at all in my experience, maybe we should be grateful.

Just kidding.  The organization claims to operate according to ethical standards.  This doesn’t cut it.  –Stephen Drake