A real poll? Or a poll slanted the way you like it?
"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 (Zogby) poll asked."
What's with the "not this" and "not that"? I'm sure that Terri's "not" a lot of things. And the inflammatory "If a disabled person" -- oh, c'mon!
Most importantly, though, is the "no written directive". Why not add the truth, "but a verbal directive". Would it hurt to add that?
How about, "If a brain damaged patient, with no hope of rehabilitation to conscious life, being kept alive solely by a surgically implanted feeding tube, having found by a court of law to have previously expressed a verbal (but not written) desire not to live in such a state -- should that wish be granted?"
Tell me how that isn't closer to the real truth than that biased Zogby question.
"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"?