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.
OH HOW I LOVE THIS POINT!
In order to call yourslef a doctor or a lawyer, one needs schooling and a license or certifate of sorts. In order to call yourself a Christian, or a conservative, or a liberal or whatever- all you need to do is say it.
Perfect example:
There are fiscal conservatives, and social liberals, etc.
I consider myself to be a true conservative, as opposed ot a "new" conservative- or whatever you want to call us or each other. Being a TRUE conservative- to me- is close to being a Constitutionist in all reality. I believe in CONSERVING our values based on the Constitution and the authors' intent. A great example of Republicans blasting the crapt out of being conservaitve is their CAPS on tort reform. WHAT AN ABSOLUTE STOMP on the Constitution. There is NOTHING conservative about their version of tort reform.
Yes- I am for tort reform. Because the intent of the Constitution has been abused in the civil courts. But what the Republicans have CALLED tort reform adds up to nothing more than legislating a protective cloak over a cetian "class" of people- that being those n the medical care field.
What is more appalling is that now we find out so much about the euthanasia of people being fowarded by the Dems, and the now, the Republicans have taken away the only recourse for people to make them "pay the price"
Unkowingly- they have both worked together to create a hostile atmosphere for the handicapped and elderly.
PATHETIC!
I think I'm an American citizen who's entitled to form the opinion that Michael Schiavo is a vicious, cruel cretin in thrall to bad philosophy. Who do you think you are?
It was ONLY after NOBODY could offer any hope that he gave up on her and decided to let her go.
Correction: he decided to kill her. He could have "let her go" at any time, and walked away. In his selfishness, he decided to kill her.
I am sick to death people judging this man with hysterical and meanspirited accusations.
What's your relation to him?
[And the fact is that evidence must be clear and convincing.] And the courts decided it was.
"courts" = Greer. And yes, that's what he decided. And he was wrong, which is why he is coming in for criticism. Understand now?
The law has always been that the spouse has the first word on decicions like this.
To quote a great debater, "You are wrong". The law has seldom allowed people to make a "decision" to kill their spouse.
If I am a vegetable and and water is all that is keeping me trapped in a such a miserable state of limbo, then by all means deny it. It's preferable to suffering years on end.
If one is a "vegetable" they cannot be "suffering". This was just one of the many glaring self-contradictions of the pro-killing faction.
The courts determined that this was Terri's wish per her husband's testimony...several times over many years. I don't know if they were right or wrong and neither do you.
Once again you use the plural "courts" to describe a single Judge.
You're right that neither I nor you know whether HE was right or wrong and that is the point. Absent clear and convincing evidence she should not have been killed, even under the bad law as it is written.
But with morphine to make sure it was painless, I would prefer this to years of being a vegatable with a tube stuck in me and needing people to wipe my butt everyday.
This is an autobiographical statement which has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. Unless you are honestly saying that she needed to be killed to preserve what you imagine you "would want" in some low-probability hypothetical situation? Which would be astoundingly selfish on your part.
The medical experts said Terri's brain had liquified.
No they did not. Your understanding of the case appears to be very shallow and cartoonish. Had her "brain" "liquified" we wouldn't be talking about this, she would have been declared dead long ago.
I believe they can and do suffer in their soul being.
You "believe" that they "suffer in their soul being", eh? Is this the sort of objective, rational, law-based considerations that inform your view?
. I don't see any reason to keep a person here when they are just as much gone already. I don't see the point.
That much is clear. So when you "don't see the point" of not killing someone, why, let's just kill them. Got it!
Maintaining her in this state of limbo for years could very well have been more cruel than just letting her go now.
"could very well have been"? based on what? the "suffering in her soul being"? Yeah that's scientific.
"My local Long Island paper was surprisingly against starving Terri"
Was that Newsday? My mom gets it daily, and I am amazed at how much misinformation she has. She didn't even know MS had a fiancee and kids. It'd be nice if Newsday came down on the right side of this, albeit a bit late.
Great responses in 602! So many of the kill-Terri contingent like to accuse the other side of undue emotionalism and rigid religiosity, but then they employ those very tactics. The biggest religious nut in this whole sordid affair is Felos. But I guess being some weird mix of newage/occultism is more acceptable than Christianity.
Exactly. Scratch just a little bit below the surface of the pro-killers, and eventually for 2/3 of them it'll come out that the main reason they think it was ok to kill her is some made-up metaphysical gobbledygook such as "her Soul is gone already" that may as well have come from some Shirley MacLaine book.
Needless to say, that sort of consideration isn't exactly solidly based in legalisms and constitutional law, but I guarantee you that it's the type of.. sentiment that contributed to the pro-killing support being as high as it was. Not that I think there's anything wrong with making up one's own metaphysics about "souls" and all that, but using one's private fever-dream to label other people as kill-worthy is a dangerous game. And being lectured by the very same people about the need to adhere to strict legalisms, just takes the cake for me.
He did. He made highly insensitive comments too.
Yes it was!
I looked at all the quotes from people, (you know how they have randomn people's faces and then a quote from them) and all of them were pro Terri.
I can't stand Newsday and yes they did leave out some FACTS, but I was happy. That opinion article made me cry.
I usually really dig Neal Boortz, but him being a libertarian with strong anti-prolife attitudes made him for the killing off of Terri. But he too employed the language of a new-ager, saying her soul was floating around the room waiting to be released to heaven. Then he'd turn around and mock Christians for basing their stand on their personal spiritual beliefs.
I am STUCK with Neal...
Living in his "hometown" of Atlanta- they will NEVER DROP HIM!
AARG!
The question wasn't flawed. I don't have a wife. I am a woman.
Thanks for posting this. And good on Zogby for doing a real poll. I was really starting to fear for my country, except for that, of course, I know what bs artists the MSM really are.
Have you stopped cheating on your husband yet?
People in comas are not conscious.
The judges who reviewed the case, and there were many, found the proof offered to be clear and convincing, and that Terri wished not to be maintained alive via artificial means, the fact that you don't find the evidence and testimony to be clear and evident proof is irrelevant; you weren't the sitting Judge.
Terri didn't want to "be killed", she did not want to be kept alive via artificial means, and wanted to be allowed to die.
"Food is not "medical treatment" and Terri Schiavo never "refused" anything"
According to Florida law it is, what part of that do you not understand?
"Michael Schiavo is your god?"
Another a$$hole comment from yet another nutjob.
I figured the poll was wrong cuz we didn't hear anything much out of the dems. about this tragedy.
Florida law does not require that. Why do you even bring it up?
"Terri was judicially murdered"
As a lawyer, you should know that murder is the "unlawful" killing of another ..." Judge Greer made a legal finding, supported by 30+ judges.
You use of the term "murder" is inflammatory and in error.
"the multiple conflicts of interest"
The "conflicts" are so tenuous as to be laughable.
"Why not add the truth, "but a verbal directive". "
There was NO 'clear and convincing" evidence of an oral directive -- the best even Mike S, his borther and wife could come up with is some offhand comment Terri made, according to them, the when watching TV and after their 84 year old Mother died, she MAY have said "I wouldn't want to live like that" AND a lot of other testimony from Terri's close friends, who testified to the opposite, that Terri treasured life, any life. And MS only remembered that "Terri wouldn't want to live like that", 7 years after Terri's collapse, AFTER he collected the $2M malpractice award, half of which was given to take care of Terri for the next 50 years, her presumed life expectancy at the time.
Would you like to be put to death on flimsy, contradictory, hearsay evidence like this? If they executed criminals based on such evidence the country would revolt, but it's OK to kill a defenseless woman on this much "evidence"?
They found Greer followed correct procedure in reaching this 'finding of fact'. not the same thing.
Anyway, if there are judges who think that proof was clear and convincing, they are morons and I'd love nothing more than to tell that to their face.
the fact that you don't find the evidence and testimony to be clear and evident proof is irrelevant; you weren't the sitting Judge.
You're right, it is irrelevant. The woman was killed, after all.
The fact that I think OJ is guilty was irrelevant. The fact that I think Elian Gonzalez should not have been seized was irrelevant. And, so on.
Terri didn't want to "be killed", she did not want to be kept alive via artificial means, and wanted to be allowed to die.
You don't know that.
And food is not "artificial means" anyway.
["Food is not "medical treatment" and Terri Schiavo never "refused" anything"] According to Florida law it is, what part of that do you not understand?
I understand it fine. Florida law is an ass on that subject. Words mean things. If Florida law said 2+2 = 5 that would not make it so.
The fact remains that food is not "medical treatment".
["Michael Schiavo is your god?"] Another a$$hole comment from yet another nutjob.
Class, Luis. Pure class you are. Your debating skills are just astounding.
The only reason the woman is dead is because Michael Schiavo wanted her to be. You somehow brought "God's will" into the equation (surprising, for someone who claims to only care about the law!). I simply connected the dots.
Bumpity!
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.