During the last decade
there has been interest worldwide on the media’s portrayal of euthanasia. It
has focused on the impacts euthanasia has on attitudes and behaviours of people
in society. The media emphasises the debate of euthanasia and gives us
information to form our opinion. However, the media can manipulate our focus.
It doesn’t influence what we think but encourages what we think about. ‘we may engage in too much "death talk" and
too little "life talk," in part because we are most attracted to that
which we most fear, and the modern media provides an almost infinite
opportunity to indulge our fear-attraction reaction to death.’
(Somerville 1997).
In the
Mary Ormerod case, Dr Ken Taylor wasn’t illegal in telling nurses to stop the
treatment of Mrs Ormerod, but he was wrong in not examining the patient
properly so he made decision without proper consult. ‘Was found guilty of
failing to adequately examine and assess her condition before ordering the
withholding of her food and fluids. During the GMC’s hearing, Taylor
acknowledged that he did not seek out a second medical opinion, but stated that
he did not think that such a consultation was necessary.’ (Marker 1999).
This media portrayal of the situation causes our attitudes towards Dr. Ken
Taylor to be negative because it suggests that he didn’t do everything he could’ve
to help Mary Ormerod.
When developing
an opinion on euthanasia, we may not be given all the facts by the media and therefore
creates this debate about whether it is right or not. The media is responsible
for what is reported to us and how the issue is represented. ‘The quantity of coverage of euthanasia is
much greater and its treatment more intense than that, for instance, of
palliative care, pain relief or the right to refuse treatment. This variation
demonstrates how the media can make an issue visible (or invisible) and can
define a "frame" that determines which related issues are given
public exposure.’ (Somerville 1997).
The media focuses
on the misconduct of euthanasia rather than the positives that can come with it
and why is it legal in few countries. It is true that the illegality of euthanasia
is more widely reported because it is not a prominently legal occurrence, but
this is what warps society’s opinions on euthanasia and associate it with
negative connotations. What the media chooses to cover, impacts public opinion.
‘The choice of what story the news media is
interested in is one of the biggest effects on public opinion. This is simple
to understand because people base their decisions on the information they have.
This becomes more difficult to judge when it is simply based on the amount of
time spent on stories. Yet this is vital.’ (Gahr 2011). For example, the
media can report to us the inhumane acts of euthanasia by letting Mary Ormerod
starve to death but may not report on how somebody suffering from motor neurone
disease was released from suffering. The media also may focus on euthanasia as
being the choice other people have made for the person, involuntary euthanasia
rather than the choice of the patient, voluntary euthanasia.
References
Gahr, E. (2011). How the News Media Influences Public Opinion.Available:
http://www.helium.com/items/2089455-how-the-news-media-influences-public-opinion.
Last accessed 20th May 2012.
Marker, R. (1999). OREGON’S PAS LAW SPUN TO
LOOK GOOD. Patients Rights Council. 13 (1)
Somerville, M.A. (1997). Euthanasia in the
Media: Journalists' Values, Media Ethics and "Public Square"
Messages. A Journal of the Art and
Science of Medicine. 13 (1)
No comments:
Post a Comment