Wallace's "fact check" ignores his prior "death book" falsehoods, advances new one
Purporting to "fact check" an interview with assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth from the previous week's edition of Fox News Sunday about an end-of-life educational booklet used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Chris Wallace falsely claimed, "The VHA handbook specifically mentions only one document, 'Your Life, Your Choices,' " which he noted "critics call the death book." Wallace's "fact check" segment in no way addressed several distortions and falsehoods he and former Bush administration aide Jim Towey advanced during an interview on the booklet that also aired during the August 23 broadcast.
From the August 30 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: It was an explosive interview on an explosive subject. Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, defending use of the document "Your Life, Your Choices." But the interview raised almost as many questions as it answered. So this week we did a fact check on the controversy. First, whether what critics call the death book is actually being used.
DUCKWORTH: It will be out in 2010. It's not yet out. So it totally was not correct by saying --
WALLACE: Secretary Duckworth, that's just not true.
WALLACE: We checked again this week and Secretary Duckworth is wrong. On July 2, the Veterans Health Administration reinstated the work workbook for veterans, called "Your Life, Your Choices," and urged health care practitioners to use it. Here's why it's so controversial. Page 21 is a worksheet in which veterans are asked to assess whether in certain situations life would be difficult but acceptable; worth living, but just barely; or not worth living. Situations like "I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair," "I am a severe financial burden on my family," and "I cannot seem to 'shake the blues,' " which raises the question: How much is the VA pushing "Your Life, Your Choices"?
DUCKWORTH: Let me make a correction there, Chris. What our practitioners were told was to refer patients to any type of a tool.
WALLACE: Duckworth is both right and wrong. In the VHA handbook, they do tell doctors to provide written materials such as Appendix C, and at another point, other published resources. But the VHA handbook specifically mentions only one document, "Your Life, Your Choices."
Wallace falsely claims VHA handbook "specifically mentions only one document"
Wallace: "VHA handbook only specifically mentions one document, 'Your Life, Your Choices.' " Purporting to "fact check" Duckworth's statement that "what our practitioners were told was to refer patients to any type of a tool," Wallace said she was "both right and wrong" because while the VHA handbook does "tell doctors to provide written materials such as Appendix C, and at another point, other published resources," the handbook "specifically mentions only one document, 'Your Life, Your Choices.'"
VHA handbook also "specifically mentions" VA's "What You Should Know About Advance Directives." In fact, the handbook's "Appendix C" to which Wallace refers "specifically mentions" and links to a copy of "Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10-0137B, What You Should Know About Advance Directives." From the VHA's Advance Care Planning And Management Of Advance Directives handbook Appendix C:
VA FORM 10-0137B, WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
Below is an embedded copy of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10-0137B, What You Should Know About Advance Directives. VA Form 10-0137B can also be found on the VA Forms Intranet web site at http://vaww.va.gov/vaforms , and Internet web site at http://www.va.gov/vaforms/ . This is to be used for local reproduction. This form will also be stocked by the Hines Service and Distribution Center (formerly known as the Forms and Publications Depot). [VHA handbook 1004.02A Appendix C]
Wallace previously cropped the handbook to remove reference to other docs, falsely claimed VA doctors were required to refer vets to "Your Life, Your Choices." On the August 23 edition of Fox News Sunday, Wallace cropped the handbook's statements that veterans could be directed to "other published resources" and Appendix C, falsely suggesting that the handbook instructed practitioners to direct veterans solely to "Your Life, Your Choices." Moreover, during his interview with Duckworth, Wallace falsely claimed that "more than a month ago -- VA health practitioners were told to refer all veterans -- not just end-of-life veterans, but all 24 million veterans -- to this document, 'Your Life, Your Choices.' [Fox News Sunday, 8/23/09]
Fox News Sunday previously advanced numerous distortions and falsehoods -- unacknowledged in "fact check" -- about "Your Life, Your Choices"
Wallace, Towey distorted passage that says: "If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug." While interviewing Towey, Wallace presented a statement from "Your Life, Your Choices" that asked, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'? " advancing Towey's earlier distortion from an August 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed that the passage was "aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political 'push poll.' " As the context makes clear, a passage explaining the importance of being very specific regarding your end-of-life preferences, "Your Life, Your Choices" says that statements like, "If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug," can mean different things to different people. [Fox News Sunday, 8/23/09]
Wallace, Towey falsely claimed Bush suspended purported "death book" use. Wallace claimed during his interview with Towey that "Bush suspended the use of this document" and the Obama administration "reinstate[d] it." In fact, Bush's VA actually promoted the document throughout his presidency, as documented by Daily Kos blogger Jed Lewison. [Fox News Sunday, 8/23/09]
It's unanimous. Their position is indefensible.
His father must be so embarrassed. Perhaps they don't even talk. I doubt Mike could put up with this sort of garbage.
The facts are irrefutable....a majority of regular FOX News viewers are ignorant of certain factual realities. Chris Wallace has sold his soul in order to take part in this mass distortion of political information. It is a sad scene to watch this country I love so much be taken down a road where we resemble society as portrayed in the film "Idiocracy" by fanatics like Murdoch, Limbaugh, and others.
A fun project for a person would be to objectively compare the questions and tone of Wallace's interviews with Pres. Clinton and Vice-Pres. Cheney. I firmly believe that any rational thinking person would be able to identify who Wallace favors.
Here are just a few of the objectionable items I find in the pamphlet:
“But studies have shown that spouses guess wrong over half the time about what kinds of treatment their husbands or wives would want.” Page 1
There are no references to the studies for me to determine if they are scientifically based.
“The doctor says that his chances of returning to normal are remote” Page 5
What's normal? Does having a disability mean that Chris Larsen isn't normal?
“In fact, Trudy’s views were the closest to Mr. Larsen’s true opinion. But the family never had a way to find this out. They treated his pneumonia and he lived another year in the nursing home without recovering his ability to communicate or care for himself.” Page 5
How does anyone know if Trudy's views were closest to Mr. Larsen's when he never recovered to communicate his wishes? The whole point of this antidote is that the family never communicated to truly know what Mr. Larsen's wishes would be in this situation.
“If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug”
Including this statement in the document clearly conveys the prejudices and discrimination against people who are sick or have a disability held by the authors.
"People have very different notions of what it means to be a “vegetable.” Here are some more examples: Page 7
• “You sit in a chair and don’t do anything all day.”
• “You can’t read anymore.”
• “You’re just a body with some life in it.”
“My life should be prolonged as long as it can, no matter what its quality, and using any means possible.”
"No matter what its quality" could it be any more value laden?
"Sometimes your closest next-of-kin is NOT the person you would like to speak for you." Page 8
The intent of this statement is clear that it is trying to lead the patient to a conclusion rather than posing a question.
“They can also relieve your loved ones of the burden of making life and death decisions on your behalf.” Page 11
“If they don't, she will die in about 2 weeks or less, and probably won't feel hungry or thirsty. If they don't, she will die in about 2 weeks or less, and probably won't feel hungry or thirsty.” Page 12
If there were scientific evidence to prove she wouldn't feel hungry or thirsty it would be provided by a objective author. The fact that it's not referenced proves there is no scientific basis for making this statement.
“He would need help taking care of himself and would not be able to live alone.” Page 13
Many Americans have been in a coma and come out of it with brain trauma and are still able to live alone. And, does needing help taking care of him somehow make him less worthy?
a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair Page 21
difficult, but acceptable
worth living, but just barely
not worth living
can’t answer now
I am a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and I have for 41 of my 55 years on this earth. I earn a six-figure income, live with the love of my life and she and I have a great life, I love my pupster, I cherish my friends, you know all the stuff that makes for a great life. None of the options used in the pamphlet describe my life and it doesn't look like my life is possible for someone in a wheelchair from reading the pamphlet. So, imagine a wounded warrior who's just experienced his or her disability and how do you think this pamphlet is going to make him or her feel about their life.
Imagine what the reaction would be if the Veterans Administration included a quality of life questionnaire the read:
a. I'm black
difficult, but acceptable
worth living, but just barely
not worth living
can’t answer now
I find it easy to believe that many people are ignorant of their spouses' preferences with regard to end of life decisions. I also don't see how knowledge of the studies would have any impact on the advice given in the pamphlet.
This was a brief rendition of a hypothetical scenario. Presumably, the doctor would provide more information and the family would ask questions. It describes the remaining time of that hypothetical person later as "he lived another year in the nursing home without recovering his ability to communicate or care for himself." The pamphlet makes absolutely no judgments on what the decisions should be under those circumstances; it simply urges discussion with family.
On the "I'm a vegetable, pull the plug" section, the pamphlet points out the problems with that statement and steers the reader away from such a pronouncement.
All of those parts of the questionnaire DO NOT steer the reader to a certain answer. They are designed to help the person think about exactly what factors are important to him/her.
There are several points in the pamphlet where it urges people not to be hasty in what they consider to be important. It points out how a portable ventilator can allow a paralyzed person to get around in a wheelchair.
As far as your what-if scenarios are concerned, the entire point of the pamphlet is to make people think about these things, discuss them with family and preferably get them down in writing. They are very personal choices and the pamphlet emphasizes that each person should be able to choose for her/himself. It points out that if people don't take that advice that others will make those choices in ignorance of the person's preferences.
The entire pamphlet does NOTHING to steer anyone toward a particular course of action. Honestly, I don't believe that you actually read it.
Let me suggest a clarification - a "stretch of logic" is commonly known as "illogic."
The only disability demonstrated is an inability of the previous poster to read and comprehend English and apply logic. Since the username is Frenchdm4132 let's just say he/she isn't a native born American whose comprehension is limited as English his/her second language.
I bet there are a lot of us vets who feel the same way, most all I know despise the republicans for what they are. And Mike, you probably should handle Tammy with kid gloves, not only is she an island girl, but she probably could whip your ass blindfolded and both hands tied behind her back... You are a real work of art, damaged as you are....
Just this old chief's 2 cents
Wallace checks facts like one checks a coat; he leaves them at the door before he goes into the studio.
Fox employs commentators. Commentators are not held to the same standards, I suppose. Occasionally I watch Fox and am surprised by actually agreeing with a reasonable statement, but other times, I think it is like watching a fictitious news program from some strange movie.
A coworker of mine was even joking about Glenn Beck making fun of NPR for the high level of vocabulary they use, and that they are a bunch of stuck up liberal pinko commies... Fox News is creating a culture of dumb. Global warming... myth. Evolution... myth. Finite resources... myth. Environmental protection... myth. Stem cell research... bad. Everything that that can potentially help America progress, they denounce.