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 see you don't know what you're talking about regarding an MRI also. Wow, you really do enjoy those nasty feet of yours in your mouth.
That's ok - the brain autopsy will show us. Then our amatuer doctor act will be moot.
Terri was killed in a way that couldn't even be legally done to a dog or cat. That Florida law allows this prodcedure simply means they did not think through the frightful consequences of adopting it, as shown here, where it becomes easier for a woman to order herself killed than it would be for her to bequeath a $2.00 heirloom to a friend. Given the immense number of due process hurdles constructed by the courts to the painless execution of mass murderers, it seems the Federal courts could at least conclude, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that the judicial taking of life in this case by deliberate starvation and dehydration at least required the victim's advance written consent and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in a PVS. The "deliberately inflamatory", and entirely accurate, term "judicial murder" stands.
bttt
So your only problem is a verbal request vs a written one (proof of PVS is required in either situation).
Cool. You're entitled to your opinion.
But let the duly elected representatives of the State of Florida carry out the will of the people and add the verbal request to the statute. Got a problem with states rights?
States can allow a verbal request for euthanasia but not a verbal request to pull the plug? Odd.
I arrived at my stance (as if stances where pertinent on this private matter between two families) by asking myself what I would do if I found myself in Michael Schiavo's shoes; an idea that was immediately dismissed as the fact that the real issue was never what Michael wanted, but rather what Terri would want if she were able to communicate her wishes.
I put myself in Terri's place, with the luxury of being of sound mind and body of course, and I immediately knew what the answer was...at least to me.
I'd want to die.
I know that my family would arrive at the exact opposite decision; they would want to extend my life for as long as humanly possible, and they would be doing it out of an honest belief that it was in my best interest.
I love them for that, but they would be acting in THEIR on interest, not mine. They would be doing what they believed was the right thing to do for their son and brother, and they would firmly believe that maintaining me alive was their duty, that standing up for me was the right thing to do by me.
They would be fulfilling their "duty" while ignoring what they knew about me.
So what happens when there is a question as to exactly what the individual would want done?
Would I wish to be maintained alive for decades, a burden to my parents and consequently (as well as inevitably) my siblings, on the outside chance that I could improve enough to be considered severely, severely handicapped?
Would I want to exist just barely above the lowest standard that could be applied and call what I was doing "existing"?
Would I rejoice in living under such circumstances on the outside probability of maybe some day regaining an infinitesimal percentage of whatever it is that makes me who I am?
No.
I would want to be made whole again, I would want to be completely healed.
And there's only one way for that to happen, and Terri today is whole and healed again.
I believe that Terri would want to die because that's what I would want, but apparently others have risen who claim the right to put their agenda above the wishes of the individual, and that the force of government should be used to satisfy their needs.
Their needs, not Terri's needs.
I've been here for quite a while, and I've seen this forum go through many, many changes, most good, some bad.
Lately, things have become quite strange, and I am getting bored being attacked by some newly-arrived poster who believes that whatever they've posted has never before seen the light of day, and that theirs is an original idea, when in fact, it's been covered ad nauseum, and fought extensively many times before.
The Terri Schiavo case has exposed a dark underbelly to the "conservative" movement as spoused by the majority of keyboard jockeys in FR; we like dictatorship, and we like judicial activism, and we want bigger, more intrusive government...as long as the results are to our liking.
Well, I don't, and debating the hoi polloi has lost whatever attraction it once held for me.
Wow...an opus.
Who would have thunk it?
The second question is so incomplete as to be misleading.
It really should ask;
Would you want to be KEPT in a horrible helpless and hopeless state of existance, from which you could NEVER recover, for years on end and slowly die over God knows how long a period of time..connected to a feeding tube......OR be able to reduce it to 13 days in a morphine induced state of comfort?
The fact is many people who make such decisions in their living wills DO NOT want to be kept alive in such a state of existance for years on end.
YOU don't know what Terri would have wanted.
The courts simply found that her husband expressed her wishes for such a situation.
Once again you use the plural "courts" to describe a single Judge.
WRONG.
SIX seperate courts have heard this case.
Each one has determined "clear and convincing" evidence exists to show that Terri Schiavo would not want to continue her current course of treatment. This is not a new case. It has taken many years—and many courts—to reach this point.
I favor lethal injection for myself. I seem to have more patience with the madding crowd than you do. And as a lawyer I am trained to see the gray. I see a lot of gray in life.
If one is a "vegetable" they cannot be "suffering". This was just one of the many glaring self-contradictions of the pro-killing faction.
What a load of BS.
The idea that being in a vegetative state of existence involves NO SUFFERING on ANY LEVEL, that a person is just fine with it..is absolutely absurd.
And you degrade yourself with shameful statements like the "pro-killing faction".
People have to make painful decisions all the time when it comes letting a loved one go..it's hard enough without your brand of misguided fanatical name-calling and accusations.
To quote a great debater, "You are wrong". The law has seldom allowed people to make a "decision" to kill their spouse.
Incredible.
You really need to educate yourself when it comes to this subject.
Spouses make life and death decisions when it comes to medical treatment for their partners ALL THE TIME.
It is the law.
No less than SIX courts have decided that Terri's husband had the right to make this decision for her.
You know the law better than they do?
In a capital case where an execution is ordered, the standard of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That not only was not the case with Terri, there is a mounting file of material pointing toward an agenda of those who had her 'put down'. Killing a severely disabled woman by dehydrating her to death when there is no terminal disease and no clear evidence that she would want same is a far cry from 'letting her go'.
You asserted, "No less than SIX courts have decided that Terri's husband had the right to make this decision for her." Actually, only one court, Greer's court has made that ruling. All other courts did not review evidence of his conflicts of interest or bring in any new evidence. You assertion is incorrect, but it looked convincing without considering the rubber stamptroopers of the Florida judiciary.
I wouldn't describe having the majority one's brain not only dead, but liquified and beyond recovery, as "no terminal disease" and simply being "disabled".
I think most people would describe that state as a living death if there ever was one. And would prefer not to be sustained indefinitely in such a state by a feeding tube.
Listen, this is a horrible decision to have to make. I don't think I could have elected to remove the feeding tube.
But I don't know how I would feel after seeing a person lingering in such a state for 15 years.
False. Judge Greer didn't make up the law that says the spouse has primary right to make such decisions...IT IS THE LAW.
One of the 'experts' Greer based his rulings regarding Terri as PVS upon said that Terri's EEG was flat, then in the next sentence said he was certain she was in PVS. Do you understand why that's proof the 'doctor' is an agenda driven quack?
No. You're arguing with me over things I never said.
I said that under the law the spouse is responsible for medical decisions like this when a person is unable to make such decisions themselves.
The fact is no less than SIX courts have been involved in this case and NONE have contested the application of the law making Michael Schaivo responsible for the decision.
11 February 2000: Judge Greer rules feeding tube can be removed, but this is not carried out immediately
23 April 2001: US Supreme Court refuses to intervene
13 December 2002: Judge Greer stays order to remove feeding tube to allow appeal
6 June 2003: Appeal court upholds Judge Greer's ruling
6 May 2004: County Court rules that Terri's Law is unconstitutional and a violation of the right to privacy
23 September 2004: Florida's Supreme Court strikes down Terri's Law
25 January 2005: US Supreme Court rejects Jeb Bush's appeal to change ruling
25 February 2005: County Court judge issues a three week stay
16 March 2005: Florida Appeals Court refuses to block removal of Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube and sets 18 March 2005 as the day the tube will be removed
22 March 2005: A Florida judge refuses to order doctors to resume feeding, on the grounds that the family is unlikely to win a new court case.
23 March 2005: A panel of appeal judges backs the Florida decision.
24 March 2005: The US Supreme Court refuses to hear an emergency appeal by Mrs Schiavo's parents, and later a Florida judge rejects a petition by Governor Jeb Bush to become her legal guardian.
25 Mar 2005:: A federal judge rejects parents' second appeal. And an appeals court rejects bid to overturn federal judge ruling.
26 Mar 2005:: A Florida state judge rejects the parents' latest appeal. The Schindlers' lawyer described it as their last chance to save Mrs Schiavo, after they decided to end federal appeals.
27 Mar 2005: The Florida Supreme Court rejects an emergency appeal by Mrs Schiavo's parents.
30 March 2005: A US federal appeals court rejects a petition by the parents to have the feeding tube reinserted. Hours later, the US Supreme Court refuses for the sixth time to intervene.
It's still pretty disgusting that as many as 9% support murder. Where are we going, and what am I doing in this hand basket?
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.