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.
Bad men do bad things unless good men stop them. Terri's death can be blamed on the will of bad men, not on the will of God.
You asked a flawed question.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
As I just posted to someone else, some people have no imagination, no empathy, and cannot extrapolate the effects of laws and government on society.
If the pol didn't win his point in the legislature, then the action of Greer was illegal under Florida law. The other judges who were charged with reviewing the case either did not review it at all, or purposefully allowed the determination that "sips and chips" by mouth was "experimental" or "medical evaluation."
Good post.
Good nite
When where all those people standing outside Terri's hospice given a vote in this matter?
Do you believe that the law was on the side of denying ice chips and sips of water to this woman?
Florida is really the ideal setting too with their guardian ad litem program in total disarray.
When did you get a vote or a voice in this matter?
Many would consider being forced to live their life in such a condition she was in to be without mercy
Judge Greer made the decsion about this case before it was heard, that is clear.
So, even if there were a significant probability of aspiration, what would be the purpose of forbidding the attempt unless one did not want the person to survive if they happened to be able to take liquid by mouth? Since it is illegal to fatally dehydrate someone who would be able to survive on oral hydration, what legitimate basis is there for denying the attempt even if the probability of success were only 1%?
[Note that oral feeding/hydration would be clearly contraindicated if there were a 5% chance of aspiration, even if there were a 90% chance of success; therefore, the fact that swallowing tests were 'unsuccessful' does not mean swallowing wouldn't be possible--merely that it would be less safe that g-tube feeding]
It WAS meanspirited.
You compared Michael Schiavo to "snipers" "muggers" and "homicide bombers".
You're not doing your side any favors with this sort of hatefilled and inflamatory rhetoric.
Luis, you and I are the sovereigns of this Republic, along with 300,000,000 others. We are paying at least minimal attention to the governance of our nation. I speak out and that gets me the voice. As to the vote, well, you figure it out my friend.
The order against oral feeding/hydration does seem to me to be probably illegal. On that one I think Greer was probably subject to reversal. But I don't think anyone thought that would actually sustain her life, despite all the chat about it. If that is not the case, that was another missed opportunity.
have a good flight - make sure there's no "Midgets with hammers"
Next time you're in FR, you might be interested in an article I posted about a very similar case as Terri's a few years ago, In Calif., that also made national news, but with very different results: it's post # 10 under the thread title "Mark Steyn: Public Execution"
The DoI, albeit NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, explains why our Founding Fathers thought governments were instituted among men. The reason I mentioned it is because (like many other really confused people on FR) you were expressing sincere confusion that the government would get involved in the business of preventing people from killing other people. I was trying to help clear it up for you. Check it out. Again, it's called "The Declaration of Independence". You can probably find it on the web.
And yes Terri was deemed terminal because she was in a PVS
I guess you're right that she was "deemed" terminal. Of course, in reality, "PVS" or not, she was not terminal. The fact that she survived 15 years proves that, QED. I am not sure why I am supposed to care what she was "deemed" over what she was in reality. Jews were "deemed" useless eaters. Shall I defer to that judgment as well? I am talking about reality, not "deemed". If she was "deemed" something that contradicts reality, maybe the "deemers" were wrong and foolhardy. In fact, that is my point.
Happens dozens of times each week in America.
You're probably right. Which... makes it.... ok? Try again.
You can download their WILL TO LIVE which they now have for most states.
Can we then put to rest the lie that she received no such tests?
If you honestly can't tell the difference between dead people and living, disabled people, that's your problem, not mine.
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.