New York Times “Health” reporter Jane E. Brody is no stranger to this blog.
Back in August, this blog took issue with her article promoting the so-called “non-heartbeating death” protocol in which organs may be harvested after the heart is stopped. Most articles covering this topic have attempted to discuss the ethical pitfalls in this protocol, pitfalls made all too apparent in the events surrounding the death of Ruben Navarro.
Here’s what an excerpt from the blog piece back in August:
The August 28th story by Jane E. Brody titled “The Solvable Problem of Organ Shortages,” falls short of real reporting and can best be described as a public relations piece for the NHBD protocol and the medical institutions implementing the protocol.
Today, Brody took up her public relations role again, shilling for “Compassion & Choices” and “Final Exit Network” – the latter organization makes no pretense of thinking suicide assistance should be limited to the terminally ill. They’re more than happy to encourage and abet the suicides of just about any old, ill or disabled person.
And that’s just fine with Brody, apparently.
Excerpts from her article titled “Terminal options for the irreversibly ill“:
One of the things that apparently moved Brody to write this PSA for euthanasia groups is a letter she received from a reader talking about her mother:
A 62-year-old woman wrote that her 90-year-old mother told her almost daily that she had “had enough”; she has had a good life but now no longer feels her life is worth living. She constantly asks her son-in-law, a physician, “Isn’t there something you can give me to help me get out of here already?”
“In this world of modern technology,” her daughter wrote, “where medical advances now provide the ability to keep individuals alive indefinitely, frequently without consideration for the quality of that life, I believe the time has come to address the issue of what you refer to as a ‘graceful exit.’
Brody appears untroubled by the fact that the letter and the lament come from the daughter and not the “suffering” person herself. And she treats every word as though it can be taken at face value. Maybe she could ask why the mother herself didn’t write or at least sign the letter – but that would mean entertaining the possiblity that the wishes expressed are those of the daughter’s alone.
After laying out the Oregon law and people’s options in terms of limiting life-sustaining treatment, Brody advances down her self-made slope to the advocacy of organizations like the Final Exit Network:
The network’s Exit Guide program accepts members with various incurable diseases that cause intolerable suffering. Members must be “cognitively functional,” “physically strong enough to perform the required tasks” and “able to procure” the needed items. Helium, when inhaled in place of oxygen, results in a loss of consciousness within a minute and heart stoppage in 15 minutes without causing the unpleasant sensation of air hunger, the authors reported.
She gives full contact information.
As to the degree of care and professionalism with which Final Exit Network zealots engage in their work, check out the this troubling account of the guided/assisted suicide of a troubled woman in the Phoenix New Times.
Brody and the NY Times have every right to publish public relations and opinion pieces; would it be too much to ask for them to move Ms. Brody to the opinion page where she belongs so no one will mistake this for reporting? –Stephen Drake
PS – Wesley Smith has his own take on it in “New Euthanasia Times.”