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.
Still can't find a link to this poll...You'd think FOX, at least, would mention it.
It's hard rub to scratch. I doubt I'll ever get it.
Don't even ask!
Well at least we agree that the state has legally defined it as such. Time to see if the law can be changed.
Either she could swallow or she could not. Reflexive or not - it is a contraindication to the diagnosis of PVS. She did not drool, she only had one pneumonia in the last few years (and survived that without antibiotics) and she was not suctioned by the hospice nurses.
There was a court order among the many that forbade, in the judge's words "natural means." Greer declared any such action to be an "experimental procedure." Here is the order found here on FR by a simple google search:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1372022/posts?page=11#11
""Greer's ruling:
Order
This cause came before the Court for hearing on March 7, 2005 on Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinued. The Court heard the argument of Daniel Gibbs, for the Respondents and of George Felos, for the Petitioner.
Having also reviewed portions of declarations or affidavits of several doctors, which were submitted to the Court by Respondents, it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of the Respondents’ FLa. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure. The Court reasons that if the 1.540(b)(5) motion is granted, there is no need for this motion. If the 1.540(b)(5) motion is denied, the Court should not do indirectly what is has not done directly.
It is therefore
Ordered and adjudged that the Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.""
The swallowing of saliva is not quite as simple as you describe it. That is why babies drool and why those in minimally conscious states or altered conscious states and even those who are mentally competent may choke on or aspirate their own saliva.
If the person is terminal and unable to tolerate liquids by mouth, and the court has ruled that he or she is not to recieve any life support or tube feedings, what is the logic in denying communion or forbidding a brother or mother the solace (for them) of placing ice chips on a parched tongue? These are "comfort" measures. I cannot imagine any hospice nurse I know going along with this decree. What would be the logic in a Court declaring that such an act is wrong?
The only thing that could have been wrong would be, as in the case of denying Dr. Cheshire or any other neurologist that the Governor or DCF sent in to examine Terri, that the judge could not bear to be proven wrong. He could not allow Terri to live. So he invented the proposition that oral hydration was "experimental" or "medical evaluation" and forbade it.
Dr. Cranford was the neurologist chosen by Michael Schiavo - HE WAS NOT THE COURT APPOUNTED DOCTOR!!! Judge Greer based his ruling on what the court appointed doctor testified.
Everybody I know thinks the government ordered the death of a disabled woman. Basic stuff a 7-year-old can understand.
Recovery from brain injuries are extremely slow and take many, many years.
If Michael didn't have the patience for it, he should have moved on and left Terri's recovery to those who did.
Explains what?
Do you think that my not standing on a death vigil over the past several days has somehow entropied all that I learned about the case over the many years that it has been making its way through the system?
Please...try to think before posting dribble.
This is what the Judge's order said:
"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedite Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED".
He didn't order denial or therapy, he ordered denial of giving her food and water even by natural means.
Michael did not kill his wife, did he?
The Court ordered the life tube removed, they did so according to Terri's wish.
The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure.
There is more to it than that brief ruling and you know it.
This whole case has made me ill ...
That is not what I asked you. That is also the second time you have evaded my questions.
All the annual swallowing tests up to 1997 showed she could not eat without a high probibility of aspiration.
"Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views." Actually, no, because Greer sifted through what the Schindler's attorney presented and tossed out things he didn't think fit the ruling her had chosen, then stamped the facts he allowed in as the record. And no court since that 'finding' has reviewed the other evidence in the case.
that means she would choke.
which is better..
starving and dehydration
or
aspiration?
Why wasn't she allowed hydration through an IV which would have made it more merciful?
Rulings are decided on the facts presented, not those which emerge later. The legality of the ruling is not affected. Folks are fusing and muddling flawed laws, flawed rulings, and the scope of review, and the interplay of the courts, the standard of review, interlocutory rulings and final rulings, and the interplay of the courts and the legislature, and the constitutionality of how they attempt to interact. It's a mess. So it's understandable. But that doesn't change the fact of what I think is observable.
According to "the law," abortion isn't murder, either. But it is.
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.