A Critique of Time Magazines The Right to Die Cover on Nancy Cruzan

In March 19, 1990 Time Magazine published an issue that discusses the Cruzan petition – an appeal that the Cruzan family created after enduring seven years of Nancy Cruzan, 32, not waking up. Its purpose is to “ask the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to end their daughter’s life” (Time Magazine, cover). The article then goes on to discuss “right-to-die” situations in general (e.g. people who undergo comas, critical burns, injuries, cancer, and more), which are situations in which the victim or victim’s loved ones feels it is best for the victim to be ‘let go’ than continue to live supported by feeding/life support medical equipment in medical treatment facilities for the rest of his/her life.

The cover photo is an illustration that introduces this topic and is therefore the first entity that viewers see in regards to this.

The sepia-toned cover photo depicts a
middle-aged white woman with a relaxed face;
her eyes are mostly closed, mouth is open, and
her short hair is slightly disheveled.

She lays in
bed with her head slightly elevated, and wears
a long sleeved sweater that is pulled up to her
bust. This shows a tube going into her
stomach. Her left hand loosely points to her
chest as her right hand relaxes.

To her right, a middle-aged white man tenderly holds the wrist of the woman’s right arm. The man sits beside the bed; His eyes are barely open while he looks straight into the camera; his face is emotionless.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified

Proficient in: Right To Die

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

He has neatly-combed hair and wears a casual black shirt as well as a square wristwatch. Behind the man sits some sort of elevated machine on a metal pole with a tube and clear, liquid-filled bottle hanging from it, which is attached by another tube. A white sheet with fold creases hangs directly behind the two individuals.

With this visual information, the viewer assumes that the picture is taken in a hospital room, the woman is sick and sleeping, or not fully cognizant, and the man next to the bed is either a relative of the woman, good friend, or a significant other. After viewing the cover photo, we notice the writing on top and learn its context. Large capitalized words spell out “THE RIGHT TO DIE” and “TIME” in all red. The caption “Pete Busalacchi and his daughter Christine, who has been unconscious since May 1987” (Time, cover) is situated in the bottom, right corner. We come to realize that our initial assumptions are close to correct. However, we question the way in which this situation is presented to us through the photograph. Photos do not lie about situations, but the way in which they are described, and therefore perceived, might.

How easy it is to objectify, or skew, a colossal, complex situation with just one photo. We know that two main actors exist in the “right-to-die” situation: first, the victims and their loved ones, and secondly, the governmental authorities that determine the circumstance’s laws. The victim and her loved one is personified upon illustration; we see difficulty, pain, and suffering. Yet, the governmental authorities are not included in the illustration; this makes their equally-as- difficult position less established. Although the authorities’ participation in the matter is greatly significant, it is not visibly acknowledged. The viewer can relate to the photograph, as the majority of society has interacted with sick loved ones and the associated sadness. This image hits home with many viewers. One wanders: was this Time Magazine’s goal?

By relating to the photos of the people, we relate to the people in them; And by relating to the people, we are more prone to agreeing with their beliefs. With this in mind, we question: does this photo fully portray an unbiased illustration of the situation at hand, or does it provide an aspect of this situation that the viewer can personally, or emotionally, relate with in order to guide us to assume a certain position on the matter? Additionally, seeing as every “right-to-die” situation is vastly diverse and situational, is it fair to summarize such a topic with an illustration of just one of those situations? One wonders where this photograph lay in the scheme of all situations involved in “right-to-die” situations. We also question the matter of consent: does the unconscious victim and her family find it acceptable that she is on the cover of one of the most popular magazines to exist, in her condition? One could state that just because the subject is in a coma and is unable to respond should not give the photographer or her loved ones the authority to decide for her whether or not it is acceptable to take her photo in such a condition.

One questions if the fact of making this topic more aware by the public comes at a cost of publicizing a sick individual’s weakest and unhealthiest state of being. Which is of greater significance? And who has the right to decide which is of greater significance? Additionally, we must ask whether it is ethical of the photographer to snapshot such a situation instead of acting upon it. Some who argue in favor of the photographer’s stance could state that the photo itself could spur popularity and “right-to-die” awareness among society, and therefore could potentially create positive change. Others who argue against the photographer’s stance could state that the photographer could be helping the victim first-hand, such as donating money for the “right-to-die” cause, instead of unresponsively snapping shots of the scene. The photographer’s principles on the issue should be considered as seriously as the issue itself.

After analyzing Time Magazine’s March 19, 1990 cover photo and asking myself these questions, I come to the conclusion that the photo does not depict the situation’s many dimensions clearly or in an unbiased way, and with the inclusion of the hinting text, leads the viewer to have an opinion of the situation that is poorly educated as it is poorly illustrated. This photo would be better used to describe one particular woman’s situation in a very complex case concerning “right-to-die” victims, from her or her loved ones’ perspective. But I do not agree with this photo being presented as the all-consuming photograph that represents the entirety of the “right-to-die” situation; it does not reference the hundreds of thousands of cases that are included in the “right-to-die” case that do not look similar to Christine Busalacchi’s, as well as the other main actor in the situation: the govermental authorities that determine the laws surrounding the case. Without the governmental authorities and their associated regulations, Time Magazine wouldn’t even have a cover story to illustrate – so why aren’t they included in the illustration? I do not believe the situation is accurately depicted through this cover photo, and therefore do not think it to be appropriate to visually educate viewers on such a complex, controversial topic in such a bias way.

Work Cited

1. The Right To Die. 1990. Time Magazine. Time Magazine. N.p.: n.p., 1990. Cover. Print.