The New York Times was founded in 1851. In its long and storied history, it has been at the heart of important legal decisions pertaining to journalism and the freedom of the press. Since 1896, its slogan has been, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

For many Americans, the Times is at the forefront of their consciousness regarding the journalism industry. It is a major news outlet in the United States’ most prominent city. The Times often sets this nation’s news agenda.  All of which makes it that much more surprising when the Times lowers itself to publishing an outdated, tag along storyline devoid of substance and not current on the latest events on a crucial topic.

In this case, the January 3, 2024 article entitled, “Should Patients Be Allowed to Die from Anorexia?” To say that this article fell down the deepest well far below the Times usual standards would be charitable. In fact, this article could have jeopardized on-going debates, discussions and interactions which are currently taking place among mental health professionals on the highly controversial topic of assisted suicide and mental health, particularly anorexia nervosa.

The Times Article attempts to frame issues designed to draw the reader away from one of the most complex issues we as sentient beings face … our very mortality … and simplify it to a plug and play game devoid of any nuance, substance and morality.

The manner in which the Times article fails is legion. So, let’s address just some of its shortcomings.

First, the Times article comes across as a less informative follow up piece to the outstanding article written by Abby Ellin and published in the Washington Post on November 1, 2023. Ms. Ellin’s article was obviously thoroughly researched, and included information from doctors, research professionals, mental health advocates, families and people who have been directly impacted by anorexia’s deadly nature. It explored both sides of this highly volatile issue. Ms. Ellin’s article endeavored to stay current with the rapidly evolving events on this topic.  All of which are missing from the Times article.

The Times article was not current regarding events which have transpired on this issue since June 2023. It did not address retraction of certain articles, medical complaints being withdrawn, or the fact that a broad-based summit occurred in Denver, Colorado on November 17, 2023, or the fact that perhaps our mental health professionals are looking at new ways to address controversial topics. Instead of engaging in seemingly endless academic articles ping-ponging back and forth, face to face respectful engagement took place. Professionalism. Mutual respect. All this important information was missing from the Times Article.

The Times Article focusing on Naomi’s story was understandable. Her story is compelling. How can we not sympathize with her? Her story touches our heart. Her story and the extreme issues and measures she has faced in her life are designed to attract readers and perhaps gain support for assisted suicide for mental health issues. And yet, her story is not representative of the millions of people suffering from anorexia nervosa. There was no counterbalance showing those people who are greatly suffering and yet who are still scratching, clawing and fighting for life.

Now make no mistake. Palliative psychiatry is a topic that has arisen as an important topic of discussion and worthy of studied research and contemplation. However, the Times Article takes this topic and renders it fodder for click bait. If people are looking for substantive information on this topic, the article fails. No mention of criteria or guidelines. No mention of studying biological or more objective signs of mental impairment.

The Times Article also failed in that it did not address the ever evolving understanding of possible biological causes of anorexia nervosa. It did not address the fact that we do not completely understand the biology and neurobiology of anorexia nervosa and accordingly no treatments have been developed, tested, and approved that specifically target the underlying biology. Genetic factors? Nothing. The Times Article also does not address recent research indicating prolonged starvation damages the gastro system and impoverishes the microbial ecology making recovery more painful and more difficult.

The Times Article did not address alternative and evolving medical measures being utilized to treat anorexia.  For example, Ketamine, Psilocybin, ECT: (electroconvulsive therapy), TMS: (transcranial magnetic stimulation), tACS: (transcranial alternating current stimulation) DBS: (deep brain stimulation). After all, don’t our medical and mental health professionals have the duty to explore all viable treatment options before beginning that journey which leads to the end of life? The article failed to explore this issue.

The Times Article unfairly portrayed Dr. Joel Yager in an unflattering light. Dr. Yager virtually attended the November 17, 2023, summit. He heard inspirational stories of heartache and resiliency from Linda and Jack Mazur and heartfelt apologies from Dr. Gaudiani to those who may have been hurt. He not only heard from but collaborated with some of the leading eating disorder experts in attendance that day. He heard the term “Terminal Anorexia” is being abandoned. He heard the commitment from all in attendance to preserve, to work together, to address this volatile topic in a compassionate, intelligent collaborative manner. As such, we are certainly justified in questioning why Dr. Yager was portrayed in such a cynical manner. Was the Times Article accurate in asserting Dr. Yager questioned the ethics and competency of other psychiatrists?  Whether they had become “zealots for the model.” Whether Dr. Yager was ambivalent and equally accepting whether Naomi lived or died. Whether Dr. Yager stated, “Yager told me that he does not regret what he wrote. ‘The main point is that some people die from the disease,’ he explained.” I believe that type of cynicism could not be generated from the Dr. Yager who participated in the November 17, 2023, summit.

The Times Article did not include information about the plenary panel session to be conducted at the International Conference of Eating Disorders in mid-March in New York City. This panel includes Dr. Gaudiani, Dr. Westmoreland, and others, with all sides of this topic to be discussed in a professional, open forum. This highly volatile, emotional, potentially divisive issue which touches our very existence deserves our highest compassion, intelligence and collaborative work. The Article failed in addressing this.

The New York Times is sometimes referred to as the “Gray Lady,” or the “Old Gray Lady.” Initially, the Gray Lady was a term of affection, meaning that the Times was deserving of respect, of measured intelligent thought. This article was the antithesis of the Times past standard.

With at least one of its photos in the article deserving of both a “trigger warning” or inclusion in the National Enquirer, this article was not worthy of being called investigative journalism. The Article took a complex, emotional issue … life or death, and relegated it to a lurid standard that makes “yellow journalism” appear erudite. Even the birds in my birdcage would be offended if I used this Article to line their dwelling.

Perhaps showing that the Old Gray Lady just ain’t what she used to be … many long years ago.