Posted on 04/01/2005 8:05:46 PM PST by FairOpinion
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.
"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
The man sought EVERY means of helping Terri he could for THREE YEARS.
I cannot fault him.
You are mistaken.
Read #93.
No, Greer made an erroneous decision based on the facts in my view, helped along by poor lawyering on one side. Greer made a finding that was not legally errant, it was within his discretion. That is why the Greer decison was legally bullet proof.
Terri Schiavo had TWO guardian ad litems over the course of the case.
Good news!
Have you ever seen a grossly obese person and said "Man, I wouldn't want to live that way!!!"
Have you ever seen a dirty, homeless person and said "Ew! I wouldn't want to live that way!!"
Have you ever said something like "If I ever have a zit on my face as big as that guys, please kill me!"
That's what Michael used as "proof" she wanted to die. An impulsive, off the cuff comment at a funeral!
No, that's the whole problem. He DIDN'T let her go.
"The man sought EVERY means of helping Terri he could for THREE YEARS.
"
HELLOOO!!!!!!! That was while the malpractice suit was in process. The minute he had the money, all he wanted is to kill Terri.
And the courts decided it was.
Speaking for myself, the idea that a brother or sister-in-law would be more reliable than my family or closest friends is preposterous.
The law has always been that the spouse has the first word on decicions like this.
"Michael has got to be the most hated man in America today. The more the truth comes out, the more hated he will be."
you answered Maybe but I personally think he has a bit more to go before he overtakes OJ and Peterson ...
I think Michael will be the king...he made us watch his long, tortuous murder of a beautiful person we got to know and love. and then he walks free.
Well, he thinks he's going to walk away free. I think he's in for a surprise. He's been protected and hiding for the past tow weeks for he can't go out in public without being shunned or vilified - not mention the threats (that part I don't agree with - but, if I were to come upon him in public, I'd make sure he knew I thought him less than human).
His face is now known world over and I understand he is 6'6" or 7". He'll stick out in any crowd. He will have no piece - he will get his due, one way or the other - it the Universal Law.
Agreed.
And, identifying the existence of potential bias in witnesses who appear in court is the function of the jury -- or where there is no jury, as here -- a function of the judge. Anyone who has ever set foot in court for any reason knows that this statement is also true.
As my column makes clear, I am very close to the middle on this subject. However, because of the preference for life, the highly possible bias by Michael, I come down on the side of life for Terri.
It sounds to me like you are hard-wired into a specific conclusion on this case, and therefore have trouble with facts that undercut that conclusion.
Billybob
This is joke right?
"Greer made an erroneous decision based on the facts in my view, helped along by poor lawyering on one side."
====
There was NO convincing evidence anywhere close to beyond reasonable doubt about Terri's wishes. There was also no "clear and convincing" evidence about Terri's condition.
Yes. FOX interviewed them and they spoke on Terri's behalf. They didn't feel it was necessary to kill her. They felt she knew exactly what was going on around her.
The charge of conflict of interest applies to the court's judgement the Michael Schaivo was a fit guardian now, in 2005, not when he was behaving honorably and pursuing nursing training to care for his disabled wife.
Whether despair made him callous, or finding another woman, or the lure of money, he did not continue on the noble path. He did not give guardianship of his wife over to her parents whose love was obviously greater than his, but 'remembered' her purported desire not to live a she had become.
Giving up would have meant passing her care on to someone else, he did more than give up, and worse.
But that statement illustrates perfectly the bizarre, irrational context of this case. Because Terri was deemed incompetent to make ANY decisions for herself, MS, by mere virtue of his status as her husband, was virtually automatically appointed as Terri's Guardian and spoke for her in all matters - i.e., She had NO voice other than through MS.
In order for her to achieve a divorce she would FIRST have to acquire another voice by removing MS as the Guardian. Talk about cruel fate to have the person most apt to gain from your demise controlling your water and food and actually aided and abetted in shutting it off by the corrupt legal system!
Circular, Circular circumstances that have my head in a fog!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.