Monday, June 20, 2005
Media most Foul (Part Deux)
Sometimes one has to wonder why exactly our media thinks it has the right to confabulate news. Perhaps they're just too indolent or incompetent to actually get off their butts and do some real reasearch.
Perhaps a simple google-search from the terminal they're busy writing bovine excrement from is beyond their abilities.
Anyhow, I've gotten hold of this email exchange. Posted without consent from either party, and bound to have repercussions for both. Tough luck - we deserve to know the why behind everything (even if the answer is only forty-two). Some say a picture says a million words... but sometimes words say more. This exchange appears to be a genuine attempt to understand the mindset of the press (sorry MrBrown, no disrespect intended) and a disturbing mindset it is, too.
In this strange society when the press quotes wantonly, indiscriminately and above all inaccurately and without permission... perhaps 'tis sometimes wiser to strike the first blow.
*****
> ________________________________
>
> From: Anonymous
> Sent: Mon 6/13/2005 7:12 PM
> To: Today author
> Subject:
>
>
>
> This is in regards to your article at the following
> URL :
>
> http://www.todayonline.com/articles/55682.asp
>
> I have no doubt that by now you have received a
> large
> amount of feedback about this article. There must be
> a
> reason why it appears to have been pulled from the
> online version of the paper.
>
> I am disappointed that you appear to be following in
> the footsteps of several of your predecessors in the
> straits times, which is to write ill-informed and
> semi-researched articles of little worth which
> mislead
> the public.
>
> The public furore elicited during the class 95fm
> morning show was a direct consequence of your
> article.
>
> I would advise you to try to do the following the
> next
> time around before you write an article of this
> nature
>
> 1) Read up around the subject.
>
> Withdrawal of treatment is legal in countries around
> the world, including the United States of America,
> and
> the United Kingdom.
>
> Withdrawal of treatment falls in the realms of
> medical
> ethics.
>
> If you wish to know the difference between
> euthanasia,
> and withdrawal of treatment, do the following
> websearch for "medical ethics, acts of omission, and
> acts of comission".
>
> This will also afford you a medicolegal perspective
> on
> the issue.
>
> 2) Verify your sources with a doctor. Asking an
> organisation to comment without giving it ample time
> to formulate a response will invariably result in no
> comment. Very nice if you're trying to put a
> conspiracy theory spin to things, but not terribly
> informative if you're really trying to find out
> information.
>
> No doubt, you have doctor friends, or friends of
> friends who could have easily put you straight, and
> afforded you a glimpse into the subject you wrote
> with
> so much authority, and so little research about.
>
> 3) At least attempt to write neutrally. "Cold and
> curt
> doctors" versus "tenderly cradling her daughter in
> her
> arms" hardly counts as objective reporting.
>
> 4) Find out both sides of the argument.
>
> This is the basic tenet of objective reporting.
> There
> are reasons the doctors offered (and did NOT FORCE)
> the option of withdrawal of treatment (surely
> offering
> all forms of options to the patients is a good
> thing?
> isn't concealing treatment options negligent, and
> nearly criminal? How does one make an informed
> decision without being first informed?). Your
> article
> appears to imply that offerering this option was in
> some way inhumane.
>
> Further reasearch (please feel free to just sit down
> at your computer terminal and do a google search)
> will
> explain to you how certain medical conditions carry
> a
> dismal prognosis with the threat of repeated further
> traumatic interventions and poor outcomes including
> the possibilities of severe disability and death,
> and
> devastatingly poor qualities of life (including
> being
> bedbound or institutionalised for life, and picking
> up
> repeated nosocomial infections)
>
> Consider that just possibly, although the doctors
> sounded callous, they were somehow trying to be -
> ironically - humane, in the long run. After having
> watched many of their patients suffer in the past.
>
> Consider also that doctors are people just like you
> -
> capable of learning through the mistakes of the
> past,
> through the mistakes of others, and through their
> own
> mistakes.
>
> This is called "evidence based medicine" (do a
> google
> search for this and you will find resources which
> will
> help you write future medical articles - that are
> INFORMED), and anecdotally-based practice. This is
> how
> they decide what options to present their patients.
>
> Three of four doctors presenting the same option
> imply
> to the objective reader that the conditions these
> children had (which you did not go into much detail
> about, unsurprisingly enough) must have been severe
> in
> the extreme.
>
> Instead you have somehow spun it to read that the
> majority of the doctors were incompetent. Well done.
>
> Because right now you read like just another
> singaporean reporter - unprofessional,
> ill-researched,
> and over-authoritative.
>
> If you had any convictions about the nature of
> truth,
> and seeking to bring the truth, and news to the
> public
> before you signed up your job, I sincerely hope that
> you recover them someday.
>
> It would probably be too much to ask for you to pull
> the article with an apology to the public.
>
> In fact, you're probably feeling irate and angry
> right
> now after reading this. You're probably going to
> embark on a long career of doctor-bashing.
>
> Is this all you want your life to amount to?
> Second-rate journalism?
--- Today Author wrote:
> Dear Sir, thank you for your feedback.
>
> I'd like to clarify some things.
>
> 1) The article was not pulled from the online
> version of the paper. It is common for our morning
> and afternoon cover stories to differ.
>
> 2) Ample time was given to hospitals and many
> doctors. After waiting for more than a month for
> official comment, an editorial decision was made to
> run the story.
>
> 3) I have no intention of 'doctor-bashing'. I have a
> deep respect for doctors and the work that they do.
>
> Regards,
Today Author
************************
thank you for your reply.
I apologise if I made assumptions as to your practice;
however your organisation must by now be familiar with
the stock response hospitals and healthcare
organisations in singapore offer to the press. Perhaps
you need to develop closer working relationships with
them to elicit a response.
Might I ask which departments within these hospitals
you approached for comments?
may I also in return ask if you have read up around
the subject you wrote about, and discovered the
distinction between withdrawal of support and
euthanasia - and the rationale for offering it as a
treatment option?
Might I also ask how offering it as an option is such
an affront to patient dignity - when it is ultimately
up to the patients to choose for or against the
option?
********************
(Today journalist)
I approached their corporate comms departments as is the usual practice. As to the distinction between euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment, my enquiries to the experts sought to distinguish the two and obtain the explanation that withdrawal of treatment when offered in context of medical options is an acceptable medical practice. However I was unable to elicit any responses from hospitals; a number of doctors I spoke to, wished to comment off the record, which was unfortunate.
As explained, an editorial decision was made to run the stories without the responses from the hospitals.
If you wish to clarify the issue further, you are very welcome to write in to news@newstoday.com.sg with your comments.
Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 12:06 PM
To: Today Author
Subject: RE:
***************************
Please find my responses attached within the body of
your email; and thank you very much for taking the
time out from your schedule to answer me. Your effort
is unexpected, but appreciated.
--- Today Author wrote:
> I approached their corporate comms departments as is
> the usual practice. As to the distinction between
> euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment, my enquiries
> to the experts sought to distinguish the two and
> obtain the explanation that withdrawal of treatment
> when offered in context of medical options is an
> acceptable medical practice. However I was unable to
> elicit any responses from hospitals; a number of
> doctors I spoke to, wished to comment off the
> record, which was unfortunate.
again I find it strange that your enquiries to the
experts seeking to distinguish the two (I'm probably
being pedantic but your sentence was not quite
gramatically sound) returned unanswered, but rather
than seek to pursue the truth with a simple
google-search (it's really not that hard to key in the
words "withdrawal of treatment" and "euthanasia", or
even the phrase "what is the difference between
euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment" on
askjeeves.com) you chose to paint the two in the same
light.
I take it you still have not learnt the difference
between the two, then. It is the fodder of
medical-student medical-ethics - your equating the two
betrays your ignorance to the medical community at
large at the outset... and also misleads the public.
Euthanasia is an act of comission; it is illegal in
many countries, and involves an active step towards
ending a life; a lethal injection for instance. It is
an answer to an individual's desire to die (because
otherwise it is obviously murder), some would argue it
is based on compassion; many others would argue that
it is based on dispassion. Evidence suggests that
those who actually perform the "mercy killing" become
psychologically debased and traumatised by it.
Withdrawal of treatment is an act of omission; it is
the withdrawal of active or unusual measures to
prolong life. This includes cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, and ventilation with a mechanical
ventilator; in some instances it includes
cardiac-drugs used in conjunction with CPR in advanced
cardac life support - drugs which are used, for
instance, to "re-start" a stopped heart.
To the layman (which includes yourself) this is
somehow intuitively offensive; a life that could have
been saved is allowed to slip away.
Know that CPR is traumatic, and can involve broken
ribs; cardiac defibrillation ("shocking") can be
traumatic and involves burns to the chest and chest
pain on regaining consciousness... and most tellingly
of all, prolonged resuscitation (involving all the
"heroic" measures above) brings with every passing
moment the increased risk of brain damage, and
subsequent death after the initial resuscitation.
In lay terms, a prolonged resuscitation can make you
come back, only to live for a prolonged period as a
bedbound vegetable, or to die in pain, and suffering
several days later, still in possession of your
faculties.
Withdrawal of treatment, as in the case of terminal
conditions (such as cancer) -- is it really such a bad
thing? It is a decision based on compassion for the
patient, as well as clinical knowledge as to prognosis
and path of the illness.
One does not withdraw treatment on a patient one
expects to make a full return to health, or at least
to an acceptable quality of life.
Extrapolating the argument to the cases you alluded to
(without really giving the public any medical DETAILS
- but affording them plenty of unsubtly placed
"biasing" phrases - cold doctors, caring parennts) -
perhaps the doctors in question thought along these
lines and were simply too pessimistic in their
estimations...
... Or perhaps not; perhaps they really were the
uncaring, clinically unsound murderous bastards that
you imply to your readers that they are (without
explicitly stating it).
The thing is, we as readers will never know, since all
we have is a dearth of facts, and a lot of your
opinions weaved into the piece as coloured adjectives
- which do not really belong in an objective
newspiece.
switching off a ventilator falls in a slightly grayer
realm; whether it be an act of omission or comission
is slightly more confusing. Not many centres do that
these days.
> As explained, an editorial decision was made to run
> the stories without the responses from the
> hospitals.
As such, it would appear to be an unfortunate decision
which betrays at least in part the quality of your
editorial committee.
> If you wish to clarify the issue further, you are
> very welcome to write in to news@newstoday.com.sg
> with your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Today Author
> TODAY - News Desk
You will well know that I have no wish to carry this
to an "official" level. In writing to you I sought
only to communicate with you as an individual, and
understand your rationale for penning an article as
misleading as you did. And perhaps to give you a
glimpse into the reality of the matter behind what you
wrote.
In a sense, I pity you. I have friends who are
reporters as well, and I know how tied your hands can
be sometimes.
It must be frustrating, doing what you do - if you
were acting under orders.
If however you were acting out of your own initiative,
then I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but please do your
research next time - read up around the subject; ask
doctor-friends... NOT for official comments (please,
that is such a stupid singaporean media thing to do,
seek carefully selected "expert" opinions without
first seeing the whole picture) but for guidance as to
where to turn your eye for enlightenment.
In the future before you write anything medical, do
the following : It will place you head and shoulders
above your fellow medical-writers, and it will also
give you a glimpse into the international medical
communities' takes on medical issues, and ethics -
google search for "pubmed" or "the Cochrane
Collaboration" -- then in turn try your search inside
these search engines.
In the United Kingdom, we often have public
medic-ethical debates held between doctors, lawyers,
and laypeople; they are interesting, and enlightening.
It is unfortunate that in Singapore the press, in
their infinite wisdom, seek to speak with such
authority on subjects they have tenuous grasps of. If
such be the case, please at least be one of those
responsible enough to shoulder the burden of bringing
the truth to your readers.
Don't just take the easy route out and fabricate.
Be well.
(Anonymous)
Perhaps a simple google-search from the terminal they're busy writing bovine excrement from is beyond their abilities.
Anyhow, I've gotten hold of this email exchange. Posted without consent from either party, and bound to have repercussions for both. Tough luck - we deserve to know the why behind everything (even if the answer is only forty-two). Some say a picture says a million words... but sometimes words say more. This exchange appears to be a genuine attempt to understand the mindset of the press (sorry MrBrown, no disrespect intended) and a disturbing mindset it is, too.
In this strange society when the press quotes wantonly, indiscriminately and above all inaccurately and without permission... perhaps 'tis sometimes wiser to strike the first blow.
*****
> ________________________________
>
> From: Anonymous
> Sent: Mon 6/13/2005 7:12 PM
> To: Today author
> Subject:
>
>
>
> This is in regards to your article at the following
> URL :
>
> http://www.todayonline.com/articles/55682.asp
>
> I have no doubt that by now you have received a
> large
> amount of feedback about this article. There must be
> a
> reason why it appears to have been pulled from the
> online version of the paper.
>
> I am disappointed that you appear to be following in
> the footsteps of several of your predecessors in the
> straits times, which is to write ill-informed and
> semi-researched articles of little worth which
> mislead
> the public.
>
> The public furore elicited during the class 95fm
> morning show was a direct consequence of your
> article.
>
> I would advise you to try to do the following the
> next
> time around before you write an article of this
> nature
>
> 1) Read up around the subject.
>
> Withdrawal of treatment is legal in countries around
> the world, including the United States of America,
> and
> the United Kingdom.
>
> Withdrawal of treatment falls in the realms of
> medical
> ethics.
>
> If you wish to know the difference between
> euthanasia,
> and withdrawal of treatment, do the following
> websearch for "medical ethics, acts of omission, and
> acts of comission".
>
> This will also afford you a medicolegal perspective
> on
> the issue.
>
> 2) Verify your sources with a doctor. Asking an
> organisation to comment without giving it ample time
> to formulate a response will invariably result in no
> comment. Very nice if you're trying to put a
> conspiracy theory spin to things, but not terribly
> informative if you're really trying to find out
> information.
>
> No doubt, you have doctor friends, or friends of
> friends who could have easily put you straight, and
> afforded you a glimpse into the subject you wrote
> with
> so much authority, and so little research about.
>
> 3) At least attempt to write neutrally. "Cold and
> curt
> doctors" versus "tenderly cradling her daughter in
> her
> arms" hardly counts as objective reporting.
>
> 4) Find out both sides of the argument.
>
> This is the basic tenet of objective reporting.
> There
> are reasons the doctors offered (and did NOT FORCE)
> the option of withdrawal of treatment (surely
> offering
> all forms of options to the patients is a good
> thing?
> isn't concealing treatment options negligent, and
> nearly criminal? How does one make an informed
> decision without being first informed?). Your
> article
> appears to imply that offerering this option was in
> some way inhumane.
>
> Further reasearch (please feel free to just sit down
> at your computer terminal and do a google search)
> will
> explain to you how certain medical conditions carry
> a
> dismal prognosis with the threat of repeated further
> traumatic interventions and poor outcomes including
> the possibilities of severe disability and death,
> and
> devastatingly poor qualities of life (including
> being
> bedbound or institutionalised for life, and picking
> up
> repeated nosocomial infections)
>
> Consider that just possibly, although the doctors
> sounded callous, they were somehow trying to be -
> ironically - humane, in the long run. After having
> watched many of their patients suffer in the past.
>
> Consider also that doctors are people just like you
> -
> capable of learning through the mistakes of the
> past,
> through the mistakes of others, and through their
> own
> mistakes.
>
> This is called "evidence based medicine" (do a
> search for this and you will find resources which
> will
> help you write future medical articles - that are
> INFORMED), and anecdotally-based practice. This is
> how
> they decide what options to present their patients.
>
> Three of four doctors presenting the same option
> imply
> to the objective reader that the conditions these
> children had (which you did not go into much detail
> about, unsurprisingly enough) must have been severe
> in
> the extreme.
>
> Instead you have somehow spun it to read that the
> majority of the doctors were incompetent. Well done.
>
> Because right now you read like just another
> singaporean reporter - unprofessional,
> ill-researched,
> and over-authoritative.
>
> If you had any convictions about the nature of
> truth,
> and seeking to bring the truth, and news to the
> public
> before you signed up your job, I sincerely hope that
> you recover them someday.
>
> It would probably be too much to ask for you to pull
> the article with an apology to the public.
>
> In fact, you're probably feeling irate and angry
> right
> now after reading this. You're probably going to
> embark on a long career of doctor-bashing.
>
> Is this all you want your life to amount to?
> Second-rate journalism?
--- Today Author wrote:
> Dear Sir, thank you for your feedback.
>
> I'd like to clarify some things.
>
> 1) The article was not pulled from the online
> version of the paper. It is common for our morning
> and afternoon cover stories to differ.
>
> 2) Ample time was given to hospitals and many
> doctors. After waiting for more than a month for
> official comment, an editorial decision was made to
> run the story.
>
> 3) I have no intention of 'doctor-bashing'. I have a
> deep respect for doctors and the work that they do.
>
> Regards,
Today Author
************************
thank you for your reply.
I apologise if I made assumptions as to your practice;
however your organisation must by now be familiar with
the stock response hospitals and healthcare
organisations in singapore offer to the press. Perhaps
you need to develop closer working relationships with
them to elicit a response.
Might I ask which departments within these hospitals
you approached for comments?
may I also in return ask if you have read up around
the subject you wrote about, and discovered the
distinction between withdrawal of support and
euthanasia - and the rationale for offering it as a
treatment option?
Might I also ask how offering it as an option is such
an affront to patient dignity - when it is ultimately
up to the patients to choose for or against the
option?
********************
(Today journalist)
I approached their corporate comms departments as is the usual practice. As to the distinction between euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment, my enquiries to the experts sought to distinguish the two and obtain the explanation that withdrawal of treatment when offered in context of medical options is an acceptable medical practice. However I was unable to elicit any responses from hospitals; a number of doctors I spoke to, wished to comment off the record, which was unfortunate.
As explained, an editorial decision was made to run the stories without the responses from the hospitals.
If you wish to clarify the issue further, you are very welcome to write in to news@newstoday.com.sg with your comments.
Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 12:06 PM
To: Today Author
Subject: RE:
***************************
Please find my responses attached within the body of
your email; and thank you very much for taking the
time out from your schedule to answer me. Your effort
is unexpected, but appreciated.
--- Today Author wrote:
> I approached their corporate comms departments as is
> the usual practice. As to the distinction between
> euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment, my enquiries
> to the experts sought to distinguish the two and
> obtain the explanation that withdrawal of treatment
> when offered in context of medical options is an
> acceptable medical practice. However I was unable to
> elicit any responses from hospitals; a number of
> doctors I spoke to, wished to comment off the
> record, which was unfortunate.
again I find it strange that your enquiries to the
experts seeking to distinguish the two (I'm probably
being pedantic but your sentence was not quite
gramatically sound) returned unanswered, but rather
than seek to pursue the truth with a simple
google-search (it's really not that hard to key in the
words "withdrawal of treatment" and "euthanasia", or
even the phrase "what is the difference between
euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment" on
askjeeves.com) you chose to paint the two in the same
light.
I take it you still have not learnt the difference
between the two, then. It is the fodder of
medical-student medical-ethics - your equating the two
betrays your ignorance to the medical community at
large at the outset... and also misleads the public.
Euthanasia is an act of comission; it is illegal in
many countries, and involves an active step towards
ending a life; a lethal injection for instance. It is
an answer to an individual's desire to die (because
otherwise it is obviously murder), some would argue it
is based on compassion; many others would argue that
it is based on dispassion. Evidence suggests that
those who actually perform the "mercy killing" become
psychologically debased and traumatised by it.
Withdrawal of treatment is an act of omission; it is
the withdrawal of active or unusual measures to
prolong life. This includes cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, and ventilation with a mechanical
ventilator; in some instances it includes
cardiac-drugs used in conjunction with CPR in advanced
cardac life support - drugs which are used, for
instance, to "re-start" a stopped heart.
To the layman (which includes yourself) this is
somehow intuitively offensive; a life that could have
been saved is allowed to slip away.
Know that CPR is traumatic, and can involve broken
ribs; cardiac defibrillation ("shocking") can be
traumatic and involves burns to the chest and chest
pain on regaining consciousness... and most tellingly
of all, prolonged resuscitation (involving all the
"heroic" measures above) brings with every passing
moment the increased risk of brain damage, and
subsequent death after the initial resuscitation.
In lay terms, a prolonged resuscitation can make you
come back, only to live for a prolonged period as a
bedbound vegetable, or to die in pain, and suffering
several days later, still in possession of your
faculties.
Withdrawal of treatment, as in the case of terminal
conditions (such as cancer) -- is it really such a bad
thing? It is a decision based on compassion for the
patient, as well as clinical knowledge as to prognosis
and path of the illness.
One does not withdraw treatment on a patient one
expects to make a full return to health, or at least
to an acceptable quality of life.
Extrapolating the argument to the cases you alluded to
(without really giving the public any medical DETAILS
- but affording them plenty of unsubtly placed
"biasing" phrases - cold doctors, caring parennts) -
perhaps the doctors in question thought along these
lines and were simply too pessimistic in their
estimations...
... Or perhaps not; perhaps they really were the
uncaring, clinically unsound murderous bastards that
you imply to your readers that they are (without
explicitly stating it).
The thing is, we as readers will never know, since all
we have is a dearth of facts, and a lot of your
opinions weaved into the piece as coloured adjectives
- which do not really belong in an objective
newspiece.
switching off a ventilator falls in a slightly grayer
realm; whether it be an act of omission or comission
is slightly more confusing. Not many centres do that
these days.
> As explained, an editorial decision was made to run
> the stories without the responses from the
> hospitals.
As such, it would appear to be an unfortunate decision
which betrays at least in part the quality of your
editorial committee.
> If you wish to clarify the issue further, you are
> very welcome to write in to news@newstoday.com.sg
> with your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Today Author
> TODAY - News Desk
You will well know that I have no wish to carry this
to an "official" level. In writing to you I sought
only to communicate with you as an individual, and
understand your rationale for penning an article as
misleading as you did. And perhaps to give you a
glimpse into the reality of the matter behind what you
wrote.
In a sense, I pity you. I have friends who are
reporters as well, and I know how tied your hands can
be sometimes.
It must be frustrating, doing what you do - if you
were acting under orders.
If however you were acting out of your own initiative,
then I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but please do your
research next time - read up around the subject; ask
doctor-friends... NOT for official comments (please,
that is such a stupid singaporean media thing to do,
seek carefully selected "expert" opinions without
first seeing the whole picture) but for guidance as to
where to turn your eye for enlightenment.
In the future before you write anything medical, do
the following : It will place you head and shoulders
above your fellow medical-writers, and it will also
give you a glimpse into the international medical
communities' takes on medical issues, and ethics -
google search for "pubmed" or "the Cochrane
Collaboration" -- then in turn try your search inside
these search engines.
In the United Kingdom, we often have public
medic-ethical debates held between doctors, lawyers,
and laypeople; they are interesting, and enlightening.
It is unfortunate that in Singapore the press, in
their infinite wisdom, seek to speak with such
authority on subjects they have tenuous grasps of. If
such be the case, please at least be one of those
responsible enough to shoulder the burden of bringing
the truth to your readers.
Don't just take the easy route out and fabricate.
Be well.
(Anonymous)
