Good for LIFE SITE NEWS
Earlier today I noticed some inadvertent factual errors in a Lifesite News story about the unexpected awakening of a woman, the media reported was "brain dead" but was clearly not. I posted a quick response about the matter here in order to do my best to ensure that the differing issues and controversies that involve a declaration of death by neurological criteria, and those involved with a diagnosis of PVS were not confused in the readers' minds.
Well, to their great credit, Lifesite News corrected the story promptly, noting that the term brain dead is sometimes used inaccurately by the media when a diagnosis is actually unconsciousness. I have taken down my earlier post and link the corrected story above. Bravo to them for doing the right thing. There is a word for that: Integrity.
Labels: Bravo: Life Site News
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:14 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I just went to the story and kept refreshing the page because I'm surprised that this is the _corrected_ story. For example, it says that organs must be recovered from patients "as close to physical death as possible." Uh, no. Legally, they are supposed to be physically dead, period. And I didn't see anywhere that it said that the media _erroneously_ use the phrase in this way. In fact, the statement about "new bioethics criteria" gave the strong impression not simply that some people are pushing for people in a PVS to be considered "dead" but that there are some sort of "new" standards out there under which it is in fact legal to take their organs and they are considered legally dead. There was _no_ indication that there is a stricter, older, and still legally and medically correct use of the phrase and that PVS people do not count. In fact, I thought it was still an awfully confusing article on this very point with little clarification.
I do notice, alarmingly, that it just appears to be _true_ that the doctors told the family the woman was "brain dead." This confirms my impression that doctors are really throwing around this term. After all, she was breathing on her own, and when she sucked the ice cube, the daughter said, "Well, maybe it's just a brain stem reflex" or something to that effect. In other words, she had _no idea_ that the whole point of true brain death is that you *don't have* brain stem reflexes, because your brain stem isn't working.
It's pretty scary if this sort of ignorance is apparently becoming par for the course in the medical world.
Lydia: I think "as close to physical death as possible" is vaguley written but is intended to mean as close to the time AFTER physical death as possible, not before it.
My point was that the previous iteration of the article was egregiously wrong factually, and no longer is. I don't think it is up to me to criticize writing style. It is now within the factual boundaries, I think. And I appreciate their willingness to adjust.
I've noticed that Lifesite is generally really good about correcting their mistakes then they are pointed out, better than most mainstream news organisations. Gives them a lot more credibility and keeps me coming back to read their website.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home