Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo (poll with fair questions)
LifeNews ^ | April 1, 2005 | Steven Ertelt

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: euthanasia; poll; polls; schiavo; schiavopoll; zogby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 701-715 next last
To: FairOpinion
You are mistaken.

About what?

121 posted on 04/01/2005 9:09:21 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes?

I don't !


What case are you talking about? None of this was done to Terri S. Maybe you are on the wrong thread,,,,,or wrong website? Take your ignorant venom elsewhere.


122 posted on 04/01/2005 9:09:27 PM PST by Ethyl (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The fact is under the law NOBODY has to accept ANY medical treatment if they don't want it

Food and water is not "medical treatment", and any laws that treat it as such, are idiotic.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to end of life situations.

The Schiavo case was not an "end of life situation".

The courts found that Terri's husband spoke for her when it came to her desire NOT to be kept alive in a vegatative state. PERIOD.

That's true. And they had woefully insufficient basis for doing so. PERIOD.

Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes?

WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the Schiavo case. You weren't paying attention, were you?

123 posted on 04/01/2005 9:09:37 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The Court reached a decision based on what they found to be Terri's wishes, not Michael Schiavo's wishes.

They had testimony from several different people, including one of Terri's best friends, who corraborated the fact that Terri's wish was NOT to be sustained alive by artificial means.

The Florida State Constitution guarantees people the right to refuse medical treatment.


124 posted on 04/01/2005 9:09:50 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
That's what Michael used as "proof" she wanted to die. An impulsive, off the cuff comment at a funeral!
This is joke right?

No. Not at all. That's why he said she wanted to die. That was the testimony - an off the cuff comment at her grandmothers funeral.

125 posted on 04/01/2005 9:10:41 PM PST by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
you have not figured out the situation.
terri was placed in a hospice as a PR and cost effective
way to save the malpractice trust.
you can always justify pulling the tube
on a hospice patient but trying it on a
nursing home patient.
126 posted on 04/01/2005 9:11:27 PM PST by BurtTpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Finally an honest poll from Zogby.


127 posted on 04/01/2005 9:11:50 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
The laws were wrong. The Florida definition of "extraordinary means" included gastric tube. Greer chose testimony to support a totally legal claim. (I don't understand why there isn't a review system to look at controversial choices, there is in medicine.)

But the fact that a court has the ability to put the hearsay of my in-laws before my own parents and siblings testimonies is unbelievable.

This is a state's right issue. Now is the time for us to start reviewing our own state's law and working for a change if needed.

128 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:00 PM PST by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: drt1
No. If a person has a lawyer representing him/her alone, that lawyer has the right to file appropriate pleadings in his/her name. To be specific, a husband cannot order counsel for a wife NOT to file a divorce action.

Billybob
129 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:14 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

No Joke.

First of all, the first several years after Terri's collapse MS said he had no idea what Terri wanted. Then, some seven years later, when he filed to get Terri killed, his bases for Terri's wishes was that he and Terri were watching a movie, with a person hooked up to the ventilator and other tubes and he claimed Terri made a comment that she wouldn't want to live like that. THAT WAS THE BASIS.

MS's brother testified to another incident, that their 84 year old Mother was on a ventilator for a day or two, even though she did have a written living will, and he claimed that Terri said, she wouldn't want to live like that -- sure she didn't, if she were 84 years old and dying and wouldn't want to be kept on a ventillator -- even if she did make that statement.

THIS WAS THE "EVIDENCE" which Judge Greer used to rule that Terri's wishes were to be starved to death and dehydrated.


130 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:27 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I have yet to hear an acquaintence express support for what happened to Terri. I have heard people express disapproval.


131 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:28 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
I tend to agree with you but I still have a penchant for Felos so let's just call it a tie. :-)

BTW, I will not be the slightest bit unhappy about anything that befalls any of the monsters who made this happen - Anything.

132 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:45 PM PST by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Made when she was 21 and suddenly remembered 7 years after her collapse and recalled by three SCHIAVOS one of whom had a strong conflict of interest and stood to gain much upon her death (and still does). Furthermore, others remember Terri being upset when Karen Ann Quinlan's feeding tube was removed, saying, "Where there's life, there's hope." Thus, there was conflicting hearsay testimony. Hardly, clear and convincing evidence.


133 posted on 04/01/2005 9:12:51 PM PST by TAdams8591 (Evil succeeds when good men don't do enough!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Ethyl
"Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes? I don't !"

What case are you talking about? None of this was done to Terri S. Maybe you are on the wrong thread,,,,,or wrong website? Take your ignorant venom elsewhere.

I was talking about OUR RIGHTS when is comes to accepting OR rejecting end of life measures when it comes to keeping us alive under such circumstances.

It's the LAW.

Maybe you need to actually read threads before you respond to them?
Just a suggestion!

134 posted on 04/01/2005 9:13:57 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The decision was reached based on Terri's wishes not to be sustained alive, not on what Michael Schiavo wanted to do, obtaining a divorce would have changed nothing.

Secondly...if you are arguing that tyhe problem here is that there were decisions on Terri's life reached without Terri's consent, how can you advocate one more decision being made (a divorce) without her consent?


135 posted on 04/01/2005 9:14:04 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

I guess you weren't paying attention to the threads which cited Florida statutes.

Florida statutes forbid the denial of food and water to disabled persons.

Judge Greer forbade the provision of food or water to Terri Schiavo. Sherriff's deputies stood by her bed to see that no one violated the order by giving her an ice chip or sip of water.

Judge Greer is exactly the kind of judge who adjudicates based on how he feels, and not on the basis of law, or fact. Judge Greer should be impeached and charged with murder.


136 posted on 04/01/2005 9:14:20 PM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Terri's grounds for divorce existed years before the decision by Judge Greer created the situation you describe. The critical legal failure in this case was, as I said, about ten years ago.

Billybob
137 posted on 04/01/2005 9:14:28 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

No such poll at Zogby website.

http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm


138 posted on 04/01/2005 9:14:42 PM PST by KDD (just the facts please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Kylie_04

"pretty small"

Might I suggest that "vanishing" would be more accurate.


139 posted on 04/01/2005 9:14:47 PM PST by HKMk23 (Rex regum et Dominus dominantium)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Well good for you. Put it in writing, have it notorized.

Your choice.

Terri wasn't given a choice. there is NO proof that she ever said she would prefer to be starved to death - only a man to whom her continued breathing was inconvenient...and who only remembered, after 7 years, that she said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial life support.

Never mind that a tube to give nutrient and water 3 times a day are not considered life support, never mind she was not terminal, never mind that michael had testified PREVIOUSLY and IN COURT, when suing for millions to "take care of Terri for the rest of her life" - citing 50 years...he said she had never told him whether she would want to be kept alive on life support or not.

So go get you papers all in a row...and may you not, should you find yourself injured and unable to speak, change you mind about having the plug pulled - as doctors will tell you 9 out of 10 do change their minds when actually finding themselves in that situation - Oh, why am I bothering to talk to a closed mind? Your mind is made up - wouldn't want to confuse you with facts. Besides, you've got some papers to write

140 posted on 04/01/2005 9:15:06 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 701-715 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson