Deborah Lipp

Yesterday I slammed the Washington Post for an article about ‘conscience’ and healthcare professionals that failed to include a single quote from anyone who had been denied service. I take that back, partly; Jesurglisac points me to a companion story that is entirely from the point of view of the victims of ‘conscience’.

The article has some genuinely heartbreaking stories; I thought this one was the worst:

But some patients agreed to be interviewed, including Deb, who was turned away by pharmacist Gene Herr at a drugstore in Denton, Tex., in 2004, when she tried to get the morning-after pill after being raped on a date. She discussed her experience with a reporter for the first time on the condition that her last name not be used.

“It almost felt like I was being raped again,” said Deb, who had already tried two other pharmacies. “I couldn’t believe someone could do something violent and then I couldn’t have a choice about what to do about it. The horror of what I went through was almost as bad as the first assault. It was like twisting a knife in a wound.”

Deb, who describes herself as “more pro-life than pro-choice,” finally got the prescription. She did not get pregnant, but she remains shaken.

“I didn’t feel like I had to be burdened by being possibly pregnant after being violently attacked,” she said. “I don’t think it should be a pharmacist’s choice to make the decision about who should receive the medication and when.”

The only redeeming feature of this horrible story is that the pharmacist was fired.

So…the Washington Post piece–not as bad as I originally thought. Still, as Jesurglisac observes in comments, this illustrates the flaws in presenting two one-sided articles as ‘balance’. For one thing, rather than presenting a whole picture it effectively creates two separate propaganda pieces. You can bet that the anti-choice lobby is going to use the one article, and I’d be surprised if the good guys didn’t use the other; most readers will mostly agree with one, and reject the other. How does that advance understanding?

The more important objection, though, is the implicit assumption that patients requiring services and healthcare providers refusing to do their jobs are somehow parallel interests. The former is about individual need, and the latter is about the desire to change the behavior of others; the one is presented as a counterpoint to the other. The framing creates a false sense of moral equivalence, and that leads to shoddy reporting on the ‘conscience’ side.

A lot of people have already observed that the author failed to ask some important questions about Stephanie Adamson, the EMT who refused to transport a woman for an ‘elective abortion’. In that case, it turns out, the patient was suffering from severe abdominal pain, and Adamson’s delay meant the patient had to go to emergency rather than the clinic. The reporter failed to ask some basic, essential questions, and as a result the story was (at best) misleading.

The whole story suffers from this lack of perspective. Their stories are never questioned; nor is the basis for their exercise of ‘conscience’. There are no medical ethicists commenting on how this fits (or doesn’t) with the oaths they took. There is no exploration of the contradiction between their desire to exercise their ‘consciences’, and their attempts to limit the ability of other people to exercise theirs. (On that point, I would love to know how many of these people have tried to force abortion clinics out of business.)

What it comes down to is this: opposing skewed perspectives do not add up to a comprehensive truth, especially when those perspectives do not have equal validity. The two articles together are not as bad as the one I thought was a solo piece; but they still don’t add up to good journalism.

[Cross-posted at If I Ran the Zoo]