If you were under the impression that starvation might be unpleasant or painful, you really should get your facts straight. Just a few hours ago, the New York Times told what to think: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death", an article which presents the uniform view of three 'experts' without offering even one counterpoint. Presumably, none exists.

Yet, to the contrary, there seem to be many viewpoints we haven't heard from:

Ira Byock, another proponent of helping patients to die by withholding food and fluids, admits that the clinical reports of patients dying peacefully or in a euphoric state are just anecdotal and have not been matched by research studies. He writes, "While currently available studies do not refute this clinical impression, neither are they sufficient to substantiate it. Thus, while the heightened probability of a gentle passing by PRNH [Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration] is intriguing, at present, it remains speculative."

Dr. Byock hardly sounds like a religious extremist.

Not to mention (as the Times indeed doesn't) the direct experience of Kate Adamson, a disability-rights activist who went through the experience herself:

"No," Mr. Schiavo said. "It's painless and probably the most natural way to die." He later told a caller, "It is a very easy way to die."

Kate Adamson begs to differ. "It's anything but that. I lived through it."

A decade ago, Mrs. Adamson, then 33, suffered a double brain stem stroke that left her completely paralyzed, unable even to blink. Inside though, she was fully cognitive, able to understand doctors telling her husband she would either die or wind up "a vegetable." She wanted to, but couldn't, scream out when "people talked about me as if I wasn't a person, as if I didn't exist. . . . It was like being trapped underground and you're praying that somebody is going to be able to find you."

During 70 days of intensive care, doctors fed Mrs. Adamson through a tube. Then her digestive system failed, forcing them to remove the tube until her body could again eliminate waste. For the next eight days, she learned what it feels like to starve.

Unable to communicate, she remembers the terror of being "on the inside screaming out, 'Feed me something! I don't want to die! . . . I'm alive! I'm a person in here! Do not let me starve!' The hunger pains were unbearable," she said. "I thought I was going insane."

Forgive me if this doesn't seem to fit into my idea of a "comfortable" situation. It must be my political or religious biases interfering with my ability to think rationally. And surely Kate Adamson isn't the only person on the planet who could have told us what involuntary starvation feels like?

Media Bias?

I understand that there are two sides to this matter, and that the "starvation is no problem!" point of view is an argument worth presenting. But what I do not understand is the use of deception regarding the Times bias, or alleged lack thereof.

Oh, sorry, not deception. Just an accident that always goes one direction. After all, when was the last time you heard the mainstream media suggest this might be an "unbearable" way to die, at all -- much less without mentioning the counterpoint?

To attempt to answer this question, I did a Google search to see how often Kate Adamson -- the disability-rights activist mentioned above -- was cited by news sources. She's been active since the mid-90's, so it's not like she appeared on the scene overnight. To my complete lack of suprise, though she has received wide coverage in the blogosophere, I could not find her mentioned nor cited by even one mainstream news outlet.

In contrast, Dr. Sean Morrison, from the Times piece, shows up on Fox News, CNN, The Sacremento Bee, and the Associated Press News Wire. Both New York Times and AP articles are often widely redistributed.

No, no bias there.

Hidden Influence

The New York Times is quick to depict anyone who has concerns about the possible pain associated with starvation as a "social conservative". Yet it appears the Times does not similarly inform us about the "experts" it presents in such a one-sided fashion.

Dr. Sean Morrison is only identified by the Times as a "professor of geriatrics and palliative care"; readers are not told has received funding from MoveOn.org's founder and major Democratic player, George Soros via his "Project Death in America" (evidence here), nor are they informed Linda Emanuel's organization also received support from Soros (same link, by an amazing co-incidence).

Both have also received millions for similar issues from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Morrison, at Sinai; Emanuel is an RWJF committee member).

RWJF, from what their own web pages indicate, seems to have been deeply involved in Oregon's end-of-life healthcare policies. (Oregon recently passed a law allowing physician-assisted suicide.) RWJF also mentions funding a media study on coverage of Jack Kevorkian which seems designed to influence opinon, and also seems to take the angle that physician-assissted suicide shouldn't be just for the rich. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as kinda creepy; quite a bit beyond honoring do-not-resucsitate requests, or ensuring adequate end-of-life pain management. That sounds suspiciously like state-funded killing, which kind of creeps me out a bit.

The Times' readers are given no hint these two have received funding from the same sets of groups for similar initiatives; groups which have heavy involvement in shaping political opinion and policy, and definite objectives. A bit more than we'd expect regarding a "professor of geriatrics", no?

Conclusion

I readily defend the Times' right to present a biased, incomplete, and one-sided portrayal of available data and opinions. And possibly to help well-funded foundations shape public opinion, without mentioning their role.

But I object strenuously to the view many argue: that such outlets are even-handed or unbiased, rather than being grossly tilted. I also object to people considering themselves well-informed when they draw most their news from such sources.

Instead, the operative policy seems to be: Can't let the people have all the data. They might draw the wrong conclusions.

Now aren't you glad you read blogs? Feel free to share this with a friend who hasn't been exposed to the other side of the argument.

Update: Welcome, any visitors from BitsBlog (and a hat-tip to the Bithead himself). To anyone else who might be seeking "the other side" of this story (which the media seems to be woefully omitting) consider this piece (with many thanks to Eric) which details some of the medical evidence suggesting Terry Shiavo is not in a Persistent Vegetative State.

Update 2: Newsmax has more, and adds, wryly:

One wonders how the Old Gray Lady would react if U.S. interrogators began to starve terrorist suspects in a bid to extract information.

I would suspect starvation would suddenly become a lot less comfortable.