{"id":4393,"date":"2019-07-29T19:12:16","date_gmt":"2019-07-29T19:12:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/?p=4393"},"modified":"2019-07-29T19:12:16","modified_gmt":"2019-07-29T19:12:16","slug":"disability-devaluation-and-euthanasia-cheerleading-in-the-saskatchewan-leader-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvndy.ca\/en\/2019\/07\/disability-devaluation-and-euthanasia-cheerleading-in-the-saskatchewan-leader-post\/","title":{"rendered":"Disability Devaluation and Euthanasia Cheerleading in the\u00a0Saskatchewan Leader-Post"},"content":{"rendered":"

Disability Devaluation and Euthanasia Cheerleading in the\u00a0Saskatchewan Leader-Post – July 29, 2019
\n<\/strong>\u00a0Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet Staff<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Back in April, an article about the euthanasia of a man in Broadview, Saskatchewan<\/a> was published in the Saskatchewan Leader-Post. Under the guise of raising awareness of the availability of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), the article portrays the euthanasia of 55-year-old Michael Hoskins as a dignified, heroic and peaceful alternative to living with a disability.\u00a0 Not only does it reinforce negative disability stereotypes, but it also violates the World Health Organization\u2019s guidelines for reporting on suicide. The amount of open and unquestioned ableism in this article made it stand out from the run-of-the-mill \u201cMAiD promotion\u201d pieces we encounter on a regular basis, so we felt it warranted further comment.<\/p>\n

The journalist quotes only one source for the article: Mr. Hoskins\u2019 sister, Lisa, whose views are parroted throughout.\u00a0 This breach of the most basic rules of journalism is the kind of mistake one would see from an inexperienced reporter.\u00a0 The author seems unaware that her failure to challenge the narrative provided by her source, and her perspective as an uninformed non-disabled person, impair her ability to identify the points of conflict, investigate the story, and present a balanced and objective view of her subject.<\/p>\n

The reporter describes the symptoms of Mr. Hoskins\u2019 disability using details that a nondisabled observer may consider negative or odd, listing \u201cpoor co-ordination, difficulty with fine motor tasks like eating or writing, changes in speech, involuntary back-and-forth eye movements and difficulty swallowing.\u201d Journalistic guidelines discourage such specificity to avoid stereotyping, in the same way reporters are cautioned against describing the outfits worn by women politicians, or quoting non-standard grammar used by people of colour.<\/p>\n

Focusing on Mr. Hoskins\u2019 characteristics misleads the reader and distracts from the authentic source of his difficulties.\u00a0 For example, the author states: \u201cThe condition affected his behaviour as well; inappropriate interjections into conversations and no filter meant inappropriate comments and lots of social problems.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, these \u201csocial problems\u201d are more likely rooted in ignorance, discrimination, and bullying by non-disabled people, as well as poor health care (due to misdiagnosis) and inadequate supports to enable Michael Hoskins to be integrated in his community.<\/p>\n

The reporter\u2019s limited perspective prevents her from looking objectively at the events that led to Mr. Hoskins\u2019 euthanasia.\u00a0 She didn\u2019t inquire as to why a nursing home placement was deemed necessary after \u201che fell and knocked himself out.\u201d\u00a0 She missed the opportunity to explore the deeper questions raised by Mr. Hoskins\u2019 decision to request and receive MAiD.\u00a0 She didn\u2019t ask why Mr. Hoskins said he would \u201crather starve to death\u201d than use a feeding tube; she simply accepted the underlying assumption that it\u2019s better to be dead than disabled. If the reporter had approached the story with a more open mind, she might have asked why Mr. Hoskins\u2019 doctor believed euthanasia was the only solution to the problems he faced.<\/p>\n

The journalist quotes Lisa\u2019s summary of the problem: \u201ca lifetime of not having any choices of his own to make, because his disease either dictated it or his situation dictated that someone else needed to make those choices for him.\u201d Interviewing other disabled people could have exposed the journalist to the social model of disability; the idea that many problems associated with disability stem from discrimination and barriers in the environment.<\/p>\n

The article quotes Lisa\u2019s account of Mr. Hoskins\u2019 fear of losing capacity: \u201cMichael didn\u2019t want to spend the rest of his life not tasting his food or needing a nurse beside him just to have a drink of water. He didn\u2019t want to get to the point where he couldn\u2019t go to the bathroom by himself.\u201d\u00a0 The author fails to point out that grief over loss of capacity and negative views about disability can be addressed through peer support, counseling and rehabilitation; none of these resources seem to have been provided to Mr. Hoskins.\u00a0 The \u201closs of dignity\u201d cited by many people who request euthanasia is often linked to squeamishness about urinary and bowel care.\u00a0 Yet disabled people manage these and other bodily functions on a daily basis with the understanding that being assisted with personal care does not make one less of a person.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s clear that Mr. Hoskins and his family thought he would be better off dead than living with a more severe disability.\u00a0 The reactions of one\u2019s family play a crucial role (positive or negative) in adapting to a change in disability.\u00a0 Had the author approached the story more objectively, she might have seen the conflict between the family\u2019s stated \u201csupport\u201d for Mr. Hoskins, and how their negative perception of his disability pushed him toward an unnecessary death.<\/p>\n

Another issue worthy of investigation was the eligibility determination process.\u00a0 The teleconference with the treatment team examining Mr. Hoskins\u2019 request was called \u201cintensive,\u201d even though \u201can hour and a half conversation with their doctor was enough to show them Michael\u2019s resolve.\u201d An alert reporter would have known that eligibility for MAiD requires more than \u201cresolve\u201d; the article did not raise the questions of whether his natural death was reasonably foreseeable, whether he was offered suicide prevention services, whether he was subject to \u201cexternal pressure\u201d or if he received effective palliative care.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hoskins was clearly fed up with the constant discrimination and other barriers he encountered. Yet the journalist didn\u2019t ask why he wasn\u2019t given tools to remove or work around those barriers.\u00a0 Why wasn\u2019t he connected to other disabled people who could help him adjust to his body\u2019s changes?<\/p>\n

Lisa\u2019s description of the morning of her brother\u2019s death deserves a deeper examination: \u201cHe was in a lot of pain at that time and the choking was quite scary for him. From the morning to the time we waited for the doctor to get there, he choked [about] half a dozen times.\u201d Where was the pain relief? Where were the interventions to prevent choking and make him comfortable?<\/p>\n

The Saskatchewan Leader-Post editors who approved this piece should think about its potential effects. In 2008, the World Health Organization released guidelines for media professionals<\/a> who cover suicide. Some of their tips for responsible coverage include:<\/p>\n