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.
I'm wondering, if they do a poll with just disabled people answering, what would be the results be.
I hope all the disabled are aware of the politicians actions in this and vote accordingly in the next election.
The disabled are pissed over this! I have a friend that is a disabled American. She is also liberal, but after she found out about Terri she is disgusted and wants to stand up for her as well! Our leaders just don't get it!
The judge heard the evidence and concluded there was.
How can you say that? Or is that merely your opinion?
I just gave you the FACTS.
The judge was wrong or deliberately ignored the evidence. BTW, Felos gave him some generous political contributions, while the case was in his court.
Points you're making are unassailable; that isn't to say that whirling dervishes won't kick up some dust though.
Judge Greer issued the sentence, the sentence was carried out and she's dead. President Bush said the strong have a duty to protect the weak. Greer was strong, Terri was weak and he ordered that she receive no food and no water so that she would die.
He's a probate judge, Terri became _____'s property, and he's probably the first probate judge to ever issue an order to not feed or give water to a Citizen of the United States. Having your life taken from you by order of a probate judge. How infamous and base is that?
Whew! He's wrong. They're wrong. It's wrong. They're morons. The law is an ass. That's irrelevant. Food is this because I say.
You're a scary guy.
Yeah, I heard about that. Wasn't it something like $250.?
You insist on presenting non-facts as facts, and ignoring real facts.
There is a great thread for you and those of you with similar notions, and refusal to even consider all the facts:
MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1373116/posts
Go high-five each other on the successful murder of an innocent, defenseless woman.
"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?
FOOD AND WATER WAS NOT MEDICAL TREATMENT WHEN TERRI "supposedly" SAID SHE DIDN't WANT LIFE SUPPORT!
You can't change the definiton of a word 15 years later and expect the intention of the original statement to still be "CLEAR AND CONVINCING!" Good Grief!
15 years ago, I said I want to get married- so today- does that mean I am gay?
SHEESHK!
Actually, it was Judge Greer who did not let facts get in the way of his version of the truth.
Please, by all means, defend on their merits the "fact" that food is "medical treatment", or that a casual comment "remembered" 7 years after the fact is "clear and convincing evidence"! Please, I dare you, defend those things on their merits. Instead of just marveling and chiding me for expressing an opinion (this IS a discussion board, did you know?), why don't you have the courage of your convictions and stand behind them.
Tell me that up is down, black is white, ignorance is strength and food is "medical treatment".
You're a scary guy.
And why is that? Because I don't want the state to kill innocent people? Can you explain rationally why that would "scare" you?
Is this some bizarro universe? It is "scary" to resist the notion that the state may kill innocent people? And - what? - "not scary" to think it's a-ok for the state to kill innocent people?
*boggle*
Thanks for making those points so effectively!
I DO believe this poll is accurate. You have probably already read what I've said, to whit:
Everyone - and I mean everyone - who I have spoken to now agrees with me that Terri ought to have had a new finding of fact. Many of them were not remotely aware of all the contortions and distortions by the press and the judge. Many of them did not agree with me before I discussed it with them, and many were vehement in disagreement to begin with, but found they were quite unaware of what had really happened.
Problem? What problem?
This is a handicapped woman.
Abused? HUH? Give me a break. 13 bone fractures don't prove abuse. Maybe she was an avid skier down there in Florida. You people are nutz.
Even if she was abused, more reason to kill her. How cruel for you people to sentence this woman to a life. How dare you incite demands for more tests, modern technology, investigations, and therapy. Anyone can see that the real compassionate thing to do is kill her. Especially by dehydration. It is painless. It is peaceful. There are no siezures. The morphine was for her breathing! C'mon- we didn't want cameras int he room because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PEACE! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! THE TRUTH IS FOR US TO SEE AND TELL YOU WHAT IT IS!
Those silly family members wanting you to see the truth for yourself? Pahleeze! How silly. You are too stupid to know the truth-- we will tell you what it is, okay?
/rant off...
Gosh that felt good!
and YES
that was sarcasm!
Who cares?
Someone had to make a determination as to the wishes of the patient. Florida law commanded Judge Greer to make that determination if he had "clear and convincing evidence". He said he did.
Who cares if the feeding tube is a "machine" or not? Or if food is "medical treatment" or not.
Judge Greer determined that Terri would not wish to live with a feeding tube and ordered it removed.
"casual comment "remembered" 7 years after the fact"
Whoa! Remembered? So you're saying that Michael forgot Terri's wishes, then "remembered" them 7 years later?
Oh, this should be good. Where did you get your information that Michael forgot? Something he said? Some statement he made? Something he wrote down?
"Can you explain rationally why that would "scare" you?"
What's scary is that people like you would force spouses to care for their brain damaged loved ones despite their verbal wishes to the contrary. That they would suffer financially and emotionally because nosy do-gooders like yourself know better as to what's good for the patient.
Get a life. Your own.
I did - the opinion of that doctor did not sway the judge so your point is moot.
That is my reply to the theocrats that assume they know God's will. They know squat what God's will is.
Pray for W and Terri's Family
"Swallowing" of saliva is not the same as swallowing water. The throat has an automatic reflex that allows it to swallow small liquid or we would all choke in our sleep. But swallowing water is not the same thing as swallowing saliva.
Also, the Orthodox ecumenical councils have not made a judgement as to when a body is considered terminal or not. Individual Orthodox scholars have put forth their opinions but they are just that - opinions. Till then what I described as a PVS being terminal is the prevailing medical and legal view.
I care. You've proven that you don't. It's not medical treatment, any more than feeding a newborn.
So you're saying that Michael forgot Terri's wishes, then "remembered" them 7 years later?
He either conveniently "forgot" to mention her wish while he was working the legal system to collect his million-plus and promising to care for her for the rest of her life, OR he made it up after he got his money. Your choice, but those are the only two that are possible. The fact that these are the only two choices available is what makes Greer's ruling untenable.
What's scary is that people like you would force spouses to care for their brain damaged loved ones despite their verbal wishes to the contrary.
What's scary is that there are probably others, hopefully few in number, offing their spouses in similar situations, except they aren't craven enough to start up a new "relationship" with another woman and have two kids by her, and they don't have relatives who respect life to oppose them.
Thankfully, you're in Zogby's 9%. It's much better over here in the 70%-plus group that doesn't plan to off their spouse the minute it becomes a bit inconvenient.
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.