Shame on Pinker for Using the V-Word
In his Time essay, about which I just commented, Steven Pinker uses the V-word to describe someone with profound cognitive incapacities. He really shouldn't. None of us should ever use that word any more than we would the odious N-word for black folk, or the C-word for women. Even used obliquely, as Pinker does the V-word, these denigrating terms are intended to demean, dehumanize, and degrade. As such, they are dangerous and should not be part of any respectable person's vocabulary.
Pinker speaks of humans being cruel in his essay. There is no denying it. Indeed, using a pejorative term that reduces some human beings to the level of a radish is precisely that.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:25 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Ironically, some folks (like myself) see evidence in scientific findings that even plant life is capable of some kind of conscious behavior. Using the V-word is radically inappropriate because those who use it imply that the person in question has less brain function than a plant.
If a person's brain is completely non-functional, then he or she has passed away. If a person's brain is somewhat functional, then he or she is still alive and should be treated as such.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Our value is not our brains but our beings.
As you pointed out Wesley, this column is very disturbing. However, I wanted to respond to part of what Mr. Pinker wrote.
He said, “...would they change our policies toward unresponsive patients--making the Terri Schiavo case look like child's play?”
Aside from the “child’s play” comment, Mr. Pinker, along with the rest of our popular media for that matter, continue to misreport (I believe deliberately) the facts of my sister’s case.
Terri was not unresponsive. All anyone would have to do is watch the videos of Terri, read the more than 40 doctors affidavits, or simply believe my family to recognize that Terri was not only very responsive, but being labeled as in this dehumanizing and lethal so-called vegetative state was also erroneous.
I am reminded of what you wrote in your November 3, 2006 blog post titled, “Thomas Sowell on Media Bias”.
“They [the media] often seem to decide the story first and then fit the facts to their perception. Once the story line is determined, facts that belie their take--even very important and pertinent facts--are often ignored or barely mentioned. Then, reporters who may come late to the story rely on the earlier reports and hence, regurgitate the skewed story line, until error often becomes perceived fact. As a consequence, a materially false impression is left for people who don't follow these matters closely.”
When it comes to Terri’s situation, this couldn’t be more accurate. Clearly there is a conscious effort by media to continue to do what they can to justify that killing my sister was the “right” thing to do.
What is so frightening however is that our indifferent public is, and will continue to be persuaded by the media, buying into this rationale that killing the disabled because they don’t have a high enough IQ is perfectly acceptable.
Thanks for coming by, Bobby. And as your family has often said, it wouldn't matter whether she was unresponsive or not. She was a human being worthy of being cared for and loved.
Something rather interesting happened here in Michigan after Terri was murdered. There is a Michigan congressman named Tom George who is a doctor, a former hospice manager, and has consistently had the support of all the Michigan pro-life groups. After Terri's horrendous death, George wrote a very _odd_ piece that was published in our local pro-life newsletter. I was so angered by it that I threw it out and now wish I'd kept it. He began the piece by stating that sometimes the administration of food and water becomes "futile" if the person in question cannot metabolize it. That's uncontroversial. But he didn't stop there. He went on to argue that if Terri was really unresponsive and was showing "only brain stem function," as Michael claimed, then it was "understandable" (or some such word) that Michael should have considered her food and water "futile." Now _that_ was not the same kind of "futility" that he was originally talking about. A slide had taken place. Then he said, trying to be so evenhanded, y'see, that if her parents were right in their contention that she was responding and showing cortical activity, then the food and water weren't "futile."
I wrote a reasoned but strongly-worded letter on this to Michigan Right to Life, which had published the piece, pointing out the slide on the term "futile" from "not doing its job as food and water" to "being given to a person who is not showing signs of upper cortical activity and who isn't going to improve." All I got back was a letter assuring me that "Tom George is pro-life," the argument being that he endorses Michigan Right to Life's statement on euthanasia!
It seems that confusion on the value of life for those severely mentally disabled goes even deep into the pro-life community.
(Bobby, I'm honored to be posting a comment on the same blog with you! God bless!)
Absolutely Wesley, from the beginning my family always held that Terri shouldn't have had to prove anything to anyone to receive our love and compassion. No one should.
And thank you Ms. McGrew for the kind words. I've been meaning to get started blogging for a long time. I can't think of a better way for me to begin than on Secondhand Smoke.
Dear Mr. Schindler:
Please accept my deepest sympathy on the loss of your sister - time doesn't take the pain away, it only dulls it. I've never lost a sister, and never lost anyone under such horrific circumstances, so I cannot know what you had to go through. All I know is that losing a loved one hurts and is awful and I wish you comfort and peace.
Terri moved, breathed, twitched, smiled - you cannot deny that she had brain activity. When the brain dies, the soul has passed on. Hers was not dead, and her soul was still with her. What happened to Terri was nothing less than murder and you're right, the media sugar-coated the situation to fit their preceptions.
I can't belive how lazy and inadequate the medai is to simply chew over an earlier report like stale vomit, rather than actually doing some research and presenting your side of the story fairly.
Lazy, or inhuman. Getting a report and making the news shouldn't take top priority over giving accurate information, and the news media has no business messing around with people's emotions - non-news media is more than welcome to philosophize, but the media is to be like science. Report the facts, and only the facts.
Not that we've ever had news media like that, but what the hell, we can always strive for right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By trying to paint supporters of Terri's family as a bunch of religious nuts, the media failed to do its job of seriously examining not only the particulars of the case, but also the bigger questions of guardian abuse of the disabled and equal protection under the law for the disabled.
Instead, it ran with the talking points of Michael Schiavo and his attorney George Felos, claims which weren't in accord with the known facts.
That Terri was ordered by a court to be killed solely on the basis of her disability (based on dubious claims by her husband's family she wanted to be dehydrated to death--excuse me, she didn't want to "live that way") was nothing short of an outrage.
Hi, Wesley.. Thank you for this post.. ;)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home