Mitch Albom will once again be writing for the Detroit Free Press. Full details are to follow from the internal investigation after his dalliance with fiction in the world of sports news. Mitch has a loyal following, and I have been one of those following his writing career since he started with the Freep. I was hoping that this was an isolated lapse of judgment on his part and not one of multiple infractions. The reading public, many of whom adore Mitch Albom, vehemently wrote to the paper that they were to lay off of Mitch. Let bygones be bygones they said. Accept his apology and move on the letters said. In a town that seeks some respite from negative publicity, dwindling population and status, and few well-regarded writing figures, except maybe Elmore Leonard, who now spends much of his time in L.A., are starved for some repectability. Mitch provided that with his desire to actually stay in Detroit. He is a multimedia star with television appearances, a radio program on WJR-AM, his bestselling books, Tuesdays with Morrie and The Five People You Meet in Heaven, both of which were developed into highly-watched television movies., and his twice-weekly column. The Freep couldn't afford to lose their lone star, but on the other hand, they couldn't afford to not fire him if this were not an isolated incident. Perhaps this will be a wake up call for those in print journalism that with the advent of the internet, web logs, and many more people interested in having the truth printed (though many are also only agenda-driven) our respected colleagues in the field of journalism will stick to the guidelines of effective column writing and reporting-"Even if your mother says its so, check it out first!." Welcome back, Mitch. It is no time to be contrite or erudite, give us some pointers on what you have learned and help yourself and us in knowing how to get it right.
It is time for useful and productive dialogue with the Terri Schiavo case. A good friend of mine and fellow columnist, Kristin Podemski, took issue with my point of view for my case against Michael Schiavo. She eloquently and with good insight felt that in this case it was "if you love someone let them go" perspective. In many instances, I would agree with that and have lived through my own family having to consider that option. It was, however, in a situation where the person, my uncle, never regained consciousness from head trauma and brain damage. I still take issue with referring to someone as being in a vegetative state, as this deemphasizes the "human" aspect of a person's life. She also contends that in years past a feeding tube was not an option and thus now can be considered "extraordinary measures" in end-of-life decisions. Using siligistic reasoning it could be concluded that in years past we also didn't have penicillin or other antibiotics and that if someone were dying from infection and didn't make their wishes known then giving antibiotics could be considered "extraordinary measures". I don't understand how it is that if someone is not dying, then you take away their food and water, then that person starves to death or dies of dehydration, is it not murder? Maybe that person cannot express their thoughts, desires or wishes in a way that we can understand, but it doesn't necessisarily mean that that person wanted to die in such a fashion or that they wanted to die at all before their natural order of death. Maybe I am more of a conspiracy theorist, but I do not believe that Michael Schiavo simply wanted to let his wife go because he loved her so deeply, but my opinion is that he wanted to let her go, because she was the only witness to what actually caused her to lose oxygen to her brain and suffer brain damage. There was evidence of damage to her throat upon admission to the hospital initially. There were no changes in her blood chemisty or enzymes that would indicate a heart attack, as has been widely reported in the mainstream media. There are others that contend that she may or not have been bulimic. Kristin pointed out the money that was awarded in the malpractice case has been used for her care, but there are conflicting reports about the level of care that was afforded her. Collaborating witnesses have contended that Michael Schiavo ordered that physical therapy and other care be withheld from Terri after the first year. None of this explains the 13 healing fractures that were evident on the bone scan of which results were allowed to be withheld until 11 years after she first collapsed and 10 years after the scan was obtained. I don't know, Kristin, I am also confused, but my suspicion is that Michael Schiavo had something he wanted to be left unknown and that is the key factor of what put Terri Schiavo in her brain-damaged condition in the first place. The only living person that will ever know is Michael Schiavo and unless he tells us otherwise, we'll never know the whole truth. Hitchcock would have had a hard time coming up with such a story.
No comments:
Post a Comment