“Dying” Kevorkian to Run for Congress – Will Media Treat Him Like a Candidate or as a Sideshow?

Kevorkian, media coverage, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog

The following Associated Press story is making its way across the net and the news media outlets:

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian says he plans to run for Congress.

Kevorkian is on parole since his release from prison last year after serving the minimum of a term for second-degree murder in one man’s death.

He said he plans to run without party affiliation for the 9th District seat now held by Republican Joe Knollenberg, who is running for re-election, The Oakland Press reported Wednesday.

“We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington,” Kevorkian said. He said he would say more about his candidacy next week.

As cited above, the main source for the AP article is a longer one in the Oakland Press.

Kevorkian’s motivations are pretty transparent. After a brief flurry of media interest following his release from prison, he found it was hard to get media attention if he wasn’t actively building a body count. He had hopes of making it big on the speaking circuit, but word has gotten out that he pretty much sucks as a speaker – especially a speaker who demands a $50,000 speaking fee.

The media in Michigan has a pretty poor track record when it comes to Kevorkian. They’ve had a history of mischaracterizing his body count as people who were “dying,” for example. And every time there’s a study or article pointing out that the majority of people who died at his hands weren’t terminally ill, it becomes “news.”

So how will the press treat Kevorkian this time? Will this be treated as some sort of sideshow or will they ask them the kind of questions they might ask a real candidate?

What kind of questions? Well, since Kevorkian said the voters deserve “honesty and sincerity,” let’s start with his medical status. It’s reasonable for voters to ask if a candidate can be expected to live out his or her term of office.

Kevorkian has a problem here, as discussed in a previous blog entry:

Like the boy who cried “wolf,” Mayer Morganroth claimed – year after year – that Kevorkian had “less than a year to live” in his efforts to win an early release for his client.

This was laid out and confirmed in an Associated Press story that appeared on December 14th of last year (link is no longer operational):

Some object to Kevorkian’s upcoming release from prison
12/14/2006, 5:34 p.m. ET
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

(excerpt)
Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group based in Forest Park, Ill., also said it was disappointed that Kevorkian would be released in June.

“We won’t forget the struggling disabled people he preyed upon. And we won’t be silent,” the group said in a statement.

It added that it expected that the 78-year-old Kevorkian, after leaving prison, will show a “near-miraculous `recovery'” from his health problems, which include diabetes, hepatitis C, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries in his brain and vertigo, according to his attorney.

“We were suspicious his health problems were greatly exaggerated when his lawyer filed appeals for four years in a row claiming Kevorkian was essentially on the brink of death,” the group said.
***
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said all requests to have sentences commuted for health reasons must first go to the Corrections Department and then to the parole board, which recommends to the governor whether the request should be
honored.

Boyd said Morganroth already has made four such requests, in 2003, 2004, 2005 and earlier this year.”In each instance he indicated that Dr. Jack Kevorkian had less than a year to live,” she said.

It would seem more than reasonable to request Kevorkian to make his medical records public so the voters can be assured he’ll actually be able to live long enough to serve out his term.

Of course, if his medical records indicate that he is healthy enough to survive the term, then he has another problem:

Why did his lawyer apparently lie about his health status for several years?

One more thing Kevorkian should be challenged on. If he wants Michigan citizens to vote for him, reporters should ask him to reconcile his candidacy with the following statements at the University of Florida earlier this year:

Not all of Kevorkian points were met with support. He evoked a mixture of applause and boos when he spoke out against the voting system.

“Everyone should refuse to vote,” he said. “That’ll send the tyrant a message.”

Maybe some member of the press should ask if “everyone should refuse to vote” refers to Kevorkian as well.

Considering the softball – even pandering – treatment that the press has accorded Kevorkian so often, it’s a lot to hope for and maybe too much to actually expect. –Stephen Drake

Obama Disappoints with Simplistic Schiavo Comments

life-ending decisions, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, schiavo

(Note: None of the following should be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection of any candidate. NDY does not endorse candidates for public office.)

For those of you who missed it, the debate last night between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led to a jarring and unpleasant reminder of just how insignificantly our issues and advocacy are being treated by the candidates. The regrets expressed by Senator Obama regarding the Senate vote on Terri Schiavo show a lack of knowledge – or regard – for the more than twenty disability advocacy organizations that weighed in on this matter. Below is an excerpt, courtesy of the NY Times, (registration required) of the statement in question:

RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you’d like to take back?

***

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you’d like to take back?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.
It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.
And so that’s an example I think of where inaction…

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube…

OBAMA: That’s exactly right.

RUSSERT: … and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

This wasn’t the first time that Obama brought this up. He made the same points, briefly, in an earlier debate.

A large part of Senator Obama’s reputation and appeal is built on the notion that he can acknowledge, respect and understand opposing points of view. That may be true in other topic areas, but so far, he’s stuck to the traditional and partisan framing of the Schiavo tragedy as one that is solely about the “decisionmaking process of the families.”

For obvious reasons, Senator Obama omitted mention of a major player in the Senate bill and vote over Schiavo – Senator Tom Harkin. Here are some conveniently forgotten statements from Senator Harkin regarding the bill that Senator Obama now regrets:

“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.

“Over the last week, I have been working hard, and in good faith with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and others to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of this case. On Thursday, we came up with a bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.

“Unfortunately, the House Republican Leadership refused to take up the bill before sending members home for a two week vacation. We are now giving the House another chance to pass this bipartisan bill.

“Congressional action in this area should be based on respect for the wishes and dignity of those who are incapacitated. I do not believe there was a need for this to be dragged out in the media yesterday, today and now into the weekend. The House now has another opportunity to act and I hope they will.

“I would have preferred to address the underlying issue and not just this case. I plan to continue to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give cases like this an opportunity for further review in federal courts.”
# # #

As it turns out, there was no exploration of the underlying issues affecting people in similar situations, thanks to the combined efforts of figures on both the left and the right to portray this as a “culture wars” clash, erasing disability advocates and even Tom Harkin from the media and the public consciousness.

We hope that in the future, Senator Obama will at least acknowledge that there are other dimensions to the Schiavo case than the simple partisan framing he has settled on. Many of us in the disability community who fought long and hard in that battle only to be treated as insignificant to the debate carry a bitter taste in our mouths.

For a start, Senator Obama might want to read – or reread – a classic text written by a former professor of his. Making All the Difference – inclusion, exclusion and American Law by Martha Minow is a text that tears apart the simple assumptions that issues such as competence and guardianship are simple ones.

It’s a good bet that large numbers of people in the disability community will be voting for the Democratic candidate in the coming presidential election. But, as Peggy Noonan has put it several times, the candidate who wins may be the one who has the greatest number of supporters willing to crawl over broken glass to vote for him or her.

Just about every disability advocate I know feels that way about Tom Harkin – the greatest ally the disability rights community has in Congress – and would act accordingly if he was running for a national office. Senator Obama might want to think about the cost of dampening enthusiasm in the disability community.

Considering the hit and miss reality of polling accessibility, we need all the enthusiasm we can muster. –Stephen Drake

Peter Singer – meet Brad Hennefer

bioethics, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, Peter Singer, reality check

The name of Peter Singer is probably familiar to many of the readers of this blog and website. Peter Singer is a bioethicist and tenured professor who teaches bioethics at Princeton University.

Singer (who should not be confused with the Peter Singer at the University of Toronto) made his reputation in Australia before moving here. His books have championed animal rights and made him a popular figure among some in the animal rights movement. Singer is equally renowned for his advocacy of public policies that would allow the killing of disabled infants as well as the killing of cognitively disabled adults.

One of his more notorious passages from his many books deals with his description of why he feels it’s OK to kill an infant with Down syndrome even though it’s not OK to kill a nondisabled infant:

To have a child with Down syndrome is to have a very different experience from having a normal child. It can still be a warm and loving experience, but we must have lowered expectations of our child’s abilities. We cannot expect a child with Down syndrome to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen movie, or to be a respectable athlete, basketballer or tennis player. (emphasis added)

This passage is from Singer’s book Rethinking Life and Death, and the relevant chapter was reprinted in 2000 in Writings on an Ethical Life. Both books are used in colleges and even high schools in ethics courses.

All of which brings me to the topic du jour. Even though I can’t find anything on the site, I’m told that today’s “Good Morning America” had a short piece on high school varsity basketball player Brad Hennefer.

No matter. There’s still an active link to the story from WPVI in New Jersey:

CHERRY HILL, N.J. — A remarkable young athlete has developed a big following.

At first glance, it was just your run of the mill three-pointer in a high school hoops game.

“He comes down with three seconds to go and makes the final shot. It was an amazing shot,” said his dad, Bob Hennefer.

And then you notice, the coach on the opposing team came over to shake the Brad Hennefer’s hand.

“It was unbelievable. He got a standing ovation,” said John Valore, Cherry Hill East coach.

This shot was different. This shot was Brad Hennefer’s first-ever Varsity basket. This shot was something that was never supposed to be in the cards.

“I’m a very good shooter, good behind the black lines,” said Brad.

Life has been tough from the beginning for Brad. Born with Down Syndrome, nothing comes easy or guaranteed.

(Note – Link also gives you access to the video version of the story which includes interviews with both Brad and his father.)

Note – if you investigate this story further, you’ll find that Brad Hennefer is also a Varsity golfer, and considers it his better sport.

I don’t usually cover “inspirational” stories, since the media concentration on the “extraordinary” members of the disability community tends to render the quiet and mundane lives of the rest of us all but invisible. But given the widely-disseminated libel against people with Down syndrome in Singer’s books, giving Brad Hennefer’s story some attention and discussion seemed appropriate.

I can only guess that Brad’s parents and their friends haven’t been exposed to Peter Singer’s evaluations of people with Down syndrome. I’m guessing his books aren’t on the curriculum at Cherry Hill East High School, where Brad excels at sports.

That’s why no one “knew” he would never be able to excel at sports or anything else in life.

Maybe some of Singer’s students should take a field trip to Brad’s high school for an alternative view of the universe and all its possibilities. It would probably be preferable to leave the professor back in the classroom.

For more information on Brad Heffener, you can read this column in the Gloucester County Times. You can also visit the Heffener’s Golf for Life website. –Stephen Drake

Breaking News – Karen McCarron Found Guilty on All Charges

crime and punishment, homicide, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog

Many of us have been following the murder trial of Karen McCarron. She killed her daughter, 3-year-old Katie McCarron, the day before Mother’s Day in 2006. Katie was autistic.

Many of us were scared that there wouldn’t be an impartial jury. There were real fears that the press coverage in the weeks after the murder contaminated the jury pool with its overwhelming sympathy for the accused killer. Not only that, the suggestion was made that the urge to kill one’s child was common for parents of children with autism and other disabilities.

There’s a critique and description of the press coverage on our website titled “Disability Advocates Call for Restraint and Responsibility in Murder Coverage“.

Luckily, those fears weren’t realized. Here is the news from the trial, issued some 20 minutes ago as I write this:

Karen McCarron guilty
Jury finds woman who killed autistic daughter guilty on all charges
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 2:13 p.m.

PEKIN (AP) — Jurors deliberated for nine hours over two days before finding a central Illinois mother guilty of suffocating her autistic daughter.

Thirty-nine-year-old Karen McCarron was taken into custody after Thursday’s
ruling.

Authorities say McCarron killed her 3-year-old daughter with a garbage bag in May 2006. The family lived in Morton.

The charges against her were first-degree murder, obstruction of justice and concealment of a homicide. –Stephen Drake

Addendum: I hope this isn’t a bad omen, but I just got off the phone with the Chicago AP office, which is transmitting its coverage of the trial over the wires. The latest story from them has a very big problem in it. Here’s the most troublesome quote, this one taken from the AP story on the Chicago Tribune website:

In a videotaped confession played during the trial, McCarron told police she could no longer deal with her daughter’s illness. People with autism often struggle to control impulses, and children with autism can be difficult to manage.

What’s implied here is that Katie McCarron was “difficult to manage.” As I pointed out to the AP staffer, testimony from Katie’s father, grandfather and other relatives last week said that she was an easy child to “manage.” Not only that, Karen McCarron hadn’t been raising Katie at all for about 20 months. She was with her only a few days before killing her.

The staffer at the AP conceded these points. All of them.

Let’s hope tomorrow’s story from the AP is free of “blame the victim” references.

Associated Press Goofs on McCarron Coverage – Then Covers its Tracks

homicide, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog

Apparently, whoever prepares the final copies at the Associated Press got a little sloppy yesterday.

The Associated Press article that was sent out at 3:25 pm to various outlets probably confused anyone who read it, since the headline contradicted the lead sentence in the article:

Psychiatrist: Mother wasn’t sane when she killed autistic daughter

Jan 15, 2008 @ 03:25 PM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PEKIN – A psychiatrist testifying for the prosecution says a central Illinois woman accused of suffocating her autistic daughter was sane at the time of the 3-year-old’s death. (empasis added)

It looks like this was probably the result of a sloppy “cut and paste” operation. The AP often “recycles” text from one ongoing story into another later story. In this case, it looks like they lifted the previous day’s headline. The day before, an expert witness for the defense did testify that Karen McCarron was insane when she killed Katie McCarron.

Tip to AP – before sending out articles out on the wire it would be a good idea to have someone read the article and make sure the headline and the article actually match.

It looks like the AP caught its goof and has sent out a “fix” to outlets that received the article with the glitchy headline. In almost every case, the offending article now has an appropriate article or the link is now dead. However, here’s one outlet that shows the article as it originally went out.

Guess they didn’t get the memo. –Stephen Drake