DC-Based Religious and Secular Media Coverage of the District’s Death with Dignity Act

IF 0.7 0 RELIGION Journal of Media and Religion Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/15348423.2019.1678944
Sean Baker, K. Lauffer
{"title":"DC-Based Religious and Secular Media Coverage of the District’s Death with Dignity Act","authors":"Sean Baker, K. Lauffer","doi":"10.1080/15348423.2019.1678944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2016, the District of Columbia passed the Death with Dignity Act, allowing physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medicine to terminally ill patients. A framing analysis of religious and secular media coverage of the passing of the medical aid-in-dying bill was conducted. Four frames were found in the coverage: Preserving Rights, Culture War, Potential for Abuse, and Good Death vs. Bad Death. It was apparent that religious papers focused on the impact of the Death with Dignity Act by emphasizing potential problems for disadvantaged people and the expansion of the act to people who do not have a terminal illness. Positioning the act within culture as an attack on divine destiny created news frames that were based on the morality of the act. Assisted death violates divine “law” and potential problems with the act exaggerates this problem. Secular news was more balanced in the coverage.","PeriodicalId":55954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media and Religion","volume":"26 1","pages":"75 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2019.1678944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In 2016, the District of Columbia passed the Death with Dignity Act, allowing physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medicine to terminally ill patients. A framing analysis of religious and secular media coverage of the passing of the medical aid-in-dying bill was conducted. Four frames were found in the coverage: Preserving Rights, Culture War, Potential for Abuse, and Good Death vs. Bad Death. It was apparent that religious papers focused on the impact of the Death with Dignity Act by emphasizing potential problems for disadvantaged people and the expansion of the act to people who do not have a terminal illness. Positioning the act within culture as an attack on divine destiny created news frames that were based on the morality of the act. Assisted death violates divine “law” and potential problems with the act exaggerates this problem. Secular news was more balanced in the coverage.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
华盛顿特区宗教和世俗媒体对该地区《尊严死亡法案》的报道
2016年,哥伦比亚特区通过了《尊严死亡法案》,允许医生为绝症患者开出致命剂量的药物。对宗教和世俗媒体对医疗临终救助法案通过的报道进行了框架分析。在报道中发现了四个框架:维护权利、文化战争、滥用的可能性和善死与恶死。很明显,宗教文件把重点放在《尊严死亡法》的影响上,强调弱势群体的潜在问题,并将该法扩大到没有绝症的人。将这种行为定位为对神圣命运的攻击,在文化中创造了基于这种行为道德的新闻框架。协助死亡违反了神圣的“法律”,而这种行为的潜在问题夸大了这一问题。世俗新闻的报道更为平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Still Fighting the God-Vs.-Gays Battle: Twitter Reaction to Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg’s Identification as a Gay Member of the Christian Left Tweeting for Religion: How Indonesian Islamic Fundamentalist Organizations Use Twitter Differences in Religious Framing of Muslims and Islam in American Media Coverage Before and After the Trump Campaign Faith Discourses in the Context of Racial Tension: Black Lives Matter and Its Counter-Narratives Digital Merit: A Case Study of a Chinese Buddhist Meditation Group on WeChat During the Early Outbreak of Covid-19 in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1