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.
" ... that was another missed opportunity." I've seen you write that on several threads regarding several different issues in the Schiavo case. Following you around these discussions is proving very enlightening regarding the workings of law and courts. Thanks for the inputs.
You are welcome. I appreciate your patience as I stuggle with this. This matter has deeply affected me.
Obviously, you have not read the Quinlan case ruling from New Jersey:
""
The Attorney General of New Jersey intervened as of right pursuant to R. 4:33-1 on behalf of the State of New Jersey, such intervention being recognized by the court in the pretrial conference order (R. 4:25-1 et seq.) of September 22, 1975. Its basis, of course, was the interest of the State in [**652] the preservation of life, which has an undoubted constitutional foundation. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 The importance of the preservation of life is memorialized in various organic documents. The Declaration of Independence states as self-evident truths "that all men * * * are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This ideal is inherent in the Constitution of the United States. It is explicitly recognized in our Constitution of 1947 which provides for "certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life * * *." N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 1. Our State government is established to protect such rights, N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 2, and, acting through the Attorney General (N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(h)), it enforces them. ""
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your home page.
Some additional info:
Terri Schiavo's CT scan – another physician’s opinion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375968/posts
A physician at a credible physicians’ website has analyzed Terri’s CAT scan and concludes that it has been grossly misrepresented. There is some cerebral atrophy, but it is a completely inaccurate to characterize it as “bag of water.” Furthermore, the author states that
“the most alarming thing about this image, however, is that there certainly is cortex left. Granted, it is severely thinned, especially for Terri's age, but I would be nonplussed if you told me that this was a 75 year old female who was somewhat senile but fully functional, and I defy a radiologist anywhere to contest that.”
In fact, the entire field of diagnosing “persistent vegetative state” or “PVS” is fraught with inaccuracy. Recent studies have shown the rate of misdiagnosis to be as high as 37% or even 43%. PVS is a clinical diagnosis, meaning that it depends on the subjective judgment of the examining physician. Experts in the field cannot even agree on the usefulness of diagnostic imaging.
It may not be that he made the decision before it was heard (although there is a lot a speculation about ties, friendships, associates, etc). It is just that once he made two decisions (that Terri was PVS, and that she would want to die), he legally NEVER had to consider any evidence or question or dispute or affadavit or even miracle break-throughs that conflicted with the two facts that he had already decided.
That's where procedure trumps justice. The "facts" of the court NEVER have to be revisited. That is why he was able to throw out the claim of the DCF doctor. It disagreed with a legally found "fact" in the case, so he did not have to consider it at all. It had no place in his court.
Now, why he couldn't consider reason and common sense is another matter. What, overturn your own findings? Admit you, the infallible judge, is wrong? Does that cause one to question all your other rulings in all your other cases? Does the court system fall apart?
(Of course, this doesn't even begin to touch the alleged conflicts of interest and guardianship law violations. They are a different story....)
This is why the US Congress ordered the Federal Court for a de novo hearing, so they can look at everything fresh -- but the judges defied the law brought by Congress.
marking
I'm on dial-up, so retrieving documents is a pain, but I thought Greer's denial of oral feeding/hydration cited her as having received three swallow tests. That would be consistent with her receiving such tests through 1993, not 1997. Am I misremembering?
Also, I don't recall her ever having had any tests that indicated that there was no possibility of swallowing food--merely that oral feeding would not be worth the risk if other methods were available.
No, people in comas are not, by definition, "conscious."
It's not surprising that you are confused by the use of "PVS" as a standard. The British Medical Journal reported that 43% of those with the diagnosis of PVS are misdiagnosed.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/313/7048/13
(even full content is free to the public in this Journal)
Be sure and take a look at those articles that have reference this article and which have been published more recently.
bookmark
Why should a judge usurp a medical decision? And if medicine is about sustaining life, well, I don't really understand the relevance of the tests. As I posed, it strikes me that the decision is illegal on its face. I wonder what statute Greer relied upon for that one.
ABSOLUTELY!! Unfortunately, the first brief filed in federal court after the Act was passed was VERY poorly written, claiming that due process was denied for very obtuse or small reasons. Based on the brief, the court said "they would not prevail in proving any of these off-the-wall claims" (my words, not theirs).
When they re-appealed, they did address the purpose of the Act that Congress had passed, and put forth a pretty strong case. Whether the courts were already biased by the previous round of appeals or whether they were just stubborn that no Congress would tell them what to do is a question left to better-placed informants!
Apparently they were given scenarios such as Terri developing diabetes and requiring amputation of a limb or limbs, in order to save her life. Gangrene in a loved one apparently is not acceptable to them. I haven't read anything about "ripping out" her heart, and I suspect the Schindlers would forego chopping her arms and legs off themselves and allow surgeons to do any necessary surgery.
In contrast, Michael's telling doctors to withhold antibiotics for a urinary infection and later, deliberately banning dental care, including not treating tooth infections in order to hasten Terri's "death process" doesn't seem ghoulish to some.
She could swallow on her own. Chewing is irrelevant.
She died because she was deliberately and methodically dehydrated for 13 days.
She was not terminal in that her disease would cause her death. If that were the case, she would not have lived at the hospice for 5 years. Michael would not have had to procure a court order to remove her PEG and to simultaneously forbid any hydration by "natural means."
You were lied to. The judge ignored evidence in fact and manipulated the definition of "experimental" and "medical evaluation" to include holding spoonsful of ice chips and water to Terri's lips.
Be outraged at the liars and the unjust. The fact that fair and just courts make these judgements in good faith every day makes the betrayal of the courts in this case more heinous. The fact that hospices all over the country provide the blessing of needed comfort and care for truly terminal patients makes the nurses who stood by while Terri's mouth and nose bled from dehydration more unforgivable.
Terri Schiavo was NOT terminally ill ..all she required for sustenance was nutrients and water. Terri Schiavo was sentenced to her terminal illness: the most shocking and reprehensible 13-day torture of agonizing death by starvation and dehydration I've ever observed. This despicable chapter will not be forgotten. Millions of us have deeply pierced hearts at the barbaric obscenity of the suffering and the court-sanctioned murder wrought in the last two weeks. God help us all.
Once Michael said he was discontinuing therapy after representing to a court that he needed 20 million dollars to care for his wife for the rest of her life, what would you have done if you were the Schindlers?
So, in what way would it have been "medical evaluation" or "experimental" for Terri to have ice chips and sips of water? Was the risk of aspiration a reason to deny her these comforts in her last 2 weeks?
Terri passed the test of time. Regardless of any test, she continued to swallow her saliva - thin water, more difficult than thickened liquids to swallow without aspiration.
Why deny her mother the ability to give her a spoonful water in her last 2 weeks? Why the legal fiction that offering oral hydration was "experimental"?
Excellent post!
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.