Using and Promoting Change of Language to Make the Objectionable Acceptable

July 6, 2010aid in dying, alex schadenberg, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, Conflation and Con jobs, euthanasia prevention coalition, marketing, media coverage, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, tortureStephen Drake

Last week, I happened to be watching The Ed Show on MSNBC. Thankfully, the host – who I think is trying to be a liberal imitation of Sean Hannity – was on vacation. Christopher Hayes, Washington editor of The Nation, was subbing for the regular host.

I was kind of paying half-attention, getting ready for a road trip the next day, when my attention focused sharply during the start of a commentary by Hayes (starts about halfway through the transcript of the show):

Imagine for a moment our country elected a bunch of people who thought that rape should be legal. Now, these pro-rape politicians knew that simply coming out and proposing that we legalize rape would be toxic and odious and rightly inspire moral revulsion among the populace. So they say this instead. Look, we don‘t support rape, but we want to legalize unilateral physical intimacy. And after they say that, they set out to make sure that no one ever called rape, rape but instead in every instance called it unilateral physical intimacy.

It‘s pretty clear that if supposedly objective news sources, say, for instance “The New York Times”, adopted that same language, they would be granting the pro-rape camp a monumental political victory. Unilateral physical intimacy is not a neutral phrase in our little thought experiment. It is propaganda, as ideologically phrased as the term welfare queen or Islamo-fascist.

Well, the same is true for the pro-torture euphemism enhanced interrogation techniques.

This immediately reminded me of Conflation and Con Job‘s (aka Compassion & Choices) recent maneuvers to get the Connecticut Superior Court to recognize the term “aid in dying” as separate and distinct from “assisted suicide.” This was just the highest profile tactic in a long-term campaign by C&C to replace the term “assisted suicide” with “aid in dying.” More commonly, the campaign is carried out with the same talking points in op-eds written by C&C members, like this one that appeared in the July 3 edition of the Bozemon Daily Chronicle.

Why is it important to them? Why spend so much effort and energy on a simple phrase?

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto in 2006. Here is what he says about what he learned at a session conducted by C&C:

One of the speakers at that conference spoke about the focus groups and polling data that had been done by Compassion & Choices. This data found that the term “Aid in Dying” improved the acceptance of the political agenda of their group by 15% over the term assisted suicide. The speaker explained that once the public accepted the term “Aid in Dying” they would be able to win the debate in the public square. The same speaker also explained how the terms assisted death and assisted dying were better than assisted suicide, but then the speaker strongly advised the participants of the conference to stop using the term assisted suicide and always use the term “aid in dying.” (emphasis added.)

The term “aid in dying” is a type of soft euphemism. Everyone wants aid in dying, whether that be pain control, symptom management, good care, but most people have no intention of dying by assisted suicide. But if you ask a person, do you support aid in dying, they will more likely say YES, without ever thinking that they are supporting assisted suicide.

The speaker then explained how Compassion & Choices had tried to get the Editorial Boards of the newspapers in California, where an assisted suicide bill had been presented, to change their language use from assisted suicide to “aid in dying”. The speaker also explained how they were working to get professional organizations to adopt the term “aid in dying”.

Returning now – and hoping people follow me – to the commentary by Christopher Hayes. He went on to relate the findings of a recent study of major newspapers and the terms used to describe “waterboarding” in years before the Bush administration and what terms were used during the Bush years:

The results are eye opening. From the 1930s to the last decade, “The New York Times” called or characterized waterboarding as torture 82 percent of the time. But from 2002 to 2008, that number dropped to 1 percent of the time. From 82 percent to 1 percent.

“The Los Angeles Times” called or characterized waterboarding as torture 96 percent of the time before the last decade, and after 2002, it dropped to 5 percent. And the number of times “USA Today” called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture, zero.

Of course, private organizations can influence terminology to affect public attitudes as well, although that wasn’t the subject of Hayes’ commentary that night. But I think these words apply to the consequences of C&C winning this war in the same way that the efforts to define away “torture” do:

The phrase “enhanced interrogation technique” was designed from the beginning to defuse our moral circuitry. It‘s the job of the independent press to trigger our moral alarms. “The New York Times” and “L.A. Times”” failed this basic test of duty and they could begin to atone now with a simple, clear policy. Just call torture what it is.

I would only add that this applies equally to “aid in dying” and that any public policy or professional organization that embraces the term has also failed its basic duty to the public and to society. –Stephen Drake

Addendum July 26, 2014: At this juncture, i would add the terms “assisted death” and “hastened death” as relevant to the post above. Additionally, I changed the word “diffuse” and replaced it with “defuse” – I believe that the latter term was the one Hayes actually used and it makes more sense in context.

Final Exit Network Billboard “Improved” by Billboard Liberation Front

June 30, 2010billboard liberation front, dignity, final exit network, humor, marketing, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog, press release, right to die, satireStephen Drake

(Note – The image above is of the Final Exit Network (FEN) billboard in San Francisco that says “My Life My Death My Choice.” Below those words the old website address has been replaced by the web address for Phillip Morris, manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes and other tobacco products.)

Some things are just too good to be true.

Once in a while, though, you get pleasantly surprised.

A few days ago, I heard that the Final Exit billboard in San Francisco had been the victim of some “creative vandalism” from a group called the “Billboard Liberation Front.” I held off, just in case this was a hoax.

Well, it’s a hoax, all right, but it’s FEN and Phillip Morris, leading manufacturers of cigarettes, who are the victims.

Up above is a picture of the new and greatly improved billboard.

Here is the press release from the Billboard Liberation Front:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 27, 2010
San Francisco

The Billboard Liberation Front (BLF) is honored to announce a new marketing partnership with Philip Morris (PM) that finally brings together the rugged sense of American independence with your most important choice as a consumer: your death. The message of “My Life. My Death. My Choice.” informs and empowers the consumer to choose, as their god given right, how they want to die. Philip Morris brings this message to the consumer to remind them that some rights are inalienable in life as they are in death.

“We’ve always said that the only two things in life that are unavoidable are death and taxes,” commented Michael E. Szymanczyk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Morris. “This campaign drives home that message where, if you are gonna die, might as well do it on your terms. Just like our Marlboro Men did.”

According to Patrick B. Smelt, Chief of Marketing, “This bold message of independence and demanding life and death on your terms fits with the current zeitgeist of anti-establishmentarianism and post-post-modern rage at the repressive state demanding a healthier you and your environment.”

The BLF was honored to accept this exciting challenge. “We have no comment on President Obama’s health care reform, but many consumer of Philip Morris’s products do. We felt that this campaign picks up on a widespread rage that some nameless, faceless bureaucrat might give them cheaper health care, preventative treatment, and maybe deny them the sweet release we are all seeking,” said Rico T. Spoons, BLF Director of Offense as he idly drew a razorblade across his wrists. “This oppressive political climate and fascist approach towards health raises the comforting question of ‘how will you end it all?’ I like to think that we are just giving some poor folks a reminder that Philip Morris will always be there to help kill you.”

All former Marlboro Men, Wayne McLaren, David McLean and Dick Hammer, were unavailable for comment due to their rugged, manly choice of death by lung cancer.

The improvement can be viewed on Howard at Van Ness.

It’s nice to see some creative anarchy alive and well – and we especially appreciate the choice of targets this time around.

Connecticut: No Appeal in ‘Aid in Dying’ Case

June 25, 2010assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, Conflation and Con jobs, Connecticut, court decisions, litigation, Our News & Commentary BlogStephen Drake

Good news and appropriate headline from the Hartford Courant:

No Appeal in ‘Aid in Dying’ Case

I’d like to think that the editors at the paper used the scare quotes on purpose. Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma consistently framed the term that way in her decision to dismiss the case. The article gives an indication of why it’s extremely appropriate in covering this case:

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit aimed at making it legal for doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives will not appeal a judge’s decision to dismiss the case.

Fairfield County physicians Gary Blick and Ronald Levine filed the lawsuit last year asking the court to declare that a state law against assisting suicide would not apply to doctors who prescribed lethal medication to mentally competent, terminally ill patients who asked for it. Doing so would not be suicide, their lawsuit argued, but “aid in dying.”

In response, Judge Aurigemma used the term “aid in dying” every time she used in her long memorandum dismissing the case. In essence, Aurigemma ruled that the legislature had visited the issue of physician-assisted suicide a number of times – and had never passed an exemption. The term ‘aid in dying’ was treated by the judge – rightly – as having no legitimacy, since it was in fact just a substitute term for an issue the legislature had already visited under a more established name.

Widow Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Final Exit Members in Georgia

June 23, 2010crime and punishment, cults, final exit network, litigation, Our News & Commentary Blog, wrongful deathStephen Drake

Billboards or no, troubles continue to mount for the Final Exit Network (FEN):

From blogger Greg Land –

Widow sues ‘Final Exit Network’ over its role in husband’s death:

10:07 am, June 23rd, 2010

The widow of a Forsyth County man who died two years ago with the assistance of the Final Action Network, an assisted suicide organization, has filed a wrongful death and negligence suit against the group and four members already facing criminal charges that they helped John D. Celmer, 54, commit suicide with the aid of an “exit hood” connected to a helium tank.

The individual defendants—co-founder Thomas Goodwin of Kennesaw, Claire Blehr of Atlanta, and Lawrence Egbert and Nicholas A. Sheridan, both of Baltimore, Md.—were indicted by a Forsyth County grand jury in March on charges of assisting a suicide, tampering with evidence and racketeering in connection with Celmer’s death.

The civil complaint, filed last week on in Fulton County Superior Court by S. Fenn Little Jr. of Little, Crumley & Chambliss on behalf of Susan Celmer, says that her husband’s cancer was in remission in April 2008 when he contacted the Final Exit Network to inquire about its “exit guide” services. Celmer provided his medical records and filled out a questionnaire and other documents, it says, and on June 19, 2008, defendants Blehr and Goodwin went to Celmer’s home and helped him place the hood over his head, holding his hands as he inhaled the helium and remaining for about 15 minutes “to confirm Celmer was dead.”

The suit says Celmer’s prognosis for recovery was “excellent” at the time of his death, and seeks damages for the value of his life, the loss of companionship for his widow, and punitive damages.

Effort to reach Blehr’s attorney, Robert Rubin of Decatur’s Peters Rubin & Reynolds, was not immediately successful.

The zealots at FEN will probably attempt to describe this as “persecution” and part of a “witch hunt.” Looks like a widow seeking justice to me. –Stephen Drake

Reporter Succeeds in Getting Two Suicide Prevention Organizations to Comment on Final Exit Network Billboard!

June 22, 2010assisted suicide, International Association of Suicide Prevention, lanny berman, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, San Francisco Suicide Prevention, suicide preventionStephen Drake

Regular readers of this blog might remember that last September – during Suicide Prevention Week – this blog blasted suicide prevention organizations for their silence on all the positive press coverage of the Final Exit Network (FEN). The coverage included approval of suicides for people who are old, ill or disabled. For good measure, virtually every story on FEN included the organizations website – where people could get information and contact people who would affirm their desire to off themselves as “rational.”

What we concluded was that Suicide Prevention Week didn’t apply to people who are old, ill or physically disabled:

Specifically, there is an appalling lack of voiced concern over the promotion of suicide in the populations of old, ill and physically disabled people. For the first few months of this year, there was nationwide coverage of the Final Exit Network – an organization that supports and facilitates the suicides of people with nonterminal disabilities and chronic conditions. Over the course of many months, stories appearing in countless outlets included the URL for the Final Exit Network in their stories. The website provided information on obtaining suicide instructional materials and how to get involved with the Final Exit Network. Most of the articles treated the Network and its “work” sympathetically.

In case you’re wondering, suicide prevention groups do get involved in media issues. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Suicide and Mental Health Association International both have sections devoted to media issues. Except for a brief mention of suicide increases related to publication of Derek Humphry’s book, Final Exit, there is no acknowledgment that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people are being facilitated and then covered in a way that legitimizes them in the press.

Well, things are looking up, a little.

The Bay Citizen “was founded in 2010 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to fact-based, independent reporting on civic and community issues in the San Francisco Bay Area.” (This all sounded familiar so I did a quick check of the likeliest source and found that the Chicago Reader‘s Michael Miner wrote about The Bay Citizen just about a month ago.)

Given the dismal and consistent silence of suicide prevention organizations over the past year, I was extremely surprised when I read the headline of the latest story on FEN’s billboards. Senior writer Katharine Mieszowski wrote the story that broke new ground in coverage of FEN and assisted suicide. The title that caught my eye was “Suicide-Prevention Experts Decry Ad,” with a subtitle that suggests the billboard could send the wrong message to those who are suicidal.

Here’s an excerpt from the story about reactions to the billboard and FEN:

“This is irresponsible and downright dangerous; it is the equivalent of handing a gun to someone who is suicidal,” wrote Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention, in an email. “This message, communicated to thousands of vulnerable individuals, suffering from psychic and or physical pain that is treatable, invites a tragic and final solution to problems that most often can be solved with proper evaluation and treatment.”

These are strong words – and I’m grateful for them. Berman doesn’t seem to be aware, though, that this message has been conveyed through countless op-eds and news articles over the past year, all carrying contact information for the FEN. And the message those suffering from “psychic or physical pain” when they contact a representative of FEN is the same that is on the billboard.

The representative of a local suicide prevention organization seems to be totally clueless as the scope of FEN’s activities and who they think should be facilitated in commiting suicide:

“Regardless of what someone might feel about assisted suicide, I feel the message behind this billboard is confusing and dangerous,” wrote David Paisley, deputy director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, in an email.

“It assumes people will understand that it is a billboard about assisted suicide or they will go to the website,” he wrote. “In reality, most people who see the billboard from the street or car will not go to the website, but are left with a message that could be interpreted very tragically by someone in crisis and acting impulsively.”

Paisley seems to be suffering from severe ignorance in regard to just what FEN will be telling people when they call. Does he really think that FEN exists to talk old, ill and disabled people out of killing themselves???

Finally, a representative of FEN has the final word – and that final word from Frank Kavanaugh is a lie – a big one:

“We don’t even think that what we do is suicide,” said Kavanaugh. “What we’re about is assistance in dying. We’re dealing with mentally competent people who are rational. People who are suicidal are severely depressed, psychotic, acting impulsively. We would never touch anybody in that kind of a situation.”

That is total crap. The case in Arizona – in which two FEN members have already entered into plea bargain agreements – involve their facilitation of the suicide of a woman who had no serious physical illness at all, but who had a long history of emotional problems.

Kudo to Ms. Mieszowski. Out of all the reporters who have covered FEN, she is the only one to have contacted suicide prevention organizations for comment – or at least the first one who has gotten a reply.

My advice to Lanny Berman and David Paisley: Start learning more about FEN. This isn’t about a “mixed message” or hitting the wrong target audience. Here’s a quote from a message left by FEN board member Bob Levine on the article on the Arizona case linked above:

We think every adult, mentally competent person has the right to end their life on their own terms. We think it is an inherent human right. The prosecutor obviously does not believe this and because of his beliefs he is using his police powers to do so.

Well, there’s also the issue of the family complaining to police about the death of the Arizona woman, which they viewed as a tragedy rather than an exercise of her rights. The police are concerned with several activities of FEN they allege – removing the helium tank and mask after death and generally cleaning the scene, reducing the ambiguity the woman felt about actually commiting suicide, and the suggestion that they might have held her hands to prevent her “accidentally” removing the plastic bag off her face.

In any case, Levine didn’t really mean “every adult” – it’s pretty clear that a person has to be old, ill or disabled to be considered by them.

The question I have is this:

Is this the first word from suicide prevention organizations on this matter – or is it the last one? In other words, will they finally break their silence and actually act like the lives of old, ill and disabled people matter to them? Or will they retreat into their previous silence – and abandonment – of this group of people?

Many of us would like to know. –Stephen Drake