Should Feeding Tube Be Removed?
Posted on 03/21/2005 7:30:53 AM PST by Dog Gone
Mar. 21, 2005 - Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.
The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.
That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.
This ABC News poll also finds that the Schiavo case has prompted an enormous level of personal discussion: Half of Americans say that as a direct result of hearing about this case, they've spoken with friends or family members about what they'd want done if they were in a similar condition. Nearly eight in 10 would not want to be kept alive.
Intensity
In addition to the majority, the intensity of public sentiment is also on the side of Schiavo's husband, who has fought successfully in the Florida courts to remove her feeding tube. And intensity runs especially strongly against congressional involvement.
Included among the 63 percent who support removing the feeding tube are 42 percent who "strongly" support it -- twice as many as strongly oppose it. And among the 70 percent who call congressional intervention inappropriate are 58 percent who hold that view strongly -- an especially high level of strong opinion.
GOP Groups
Views on this issue are informed more by ideological and religious views than by political partisanship. Republicans overall look much like Democrats and independents in their opinions.
But two core Republican groups -- conservatives and evangelical Protestants -- are more divided: Fifty-four percent of conservatives support removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, compared with seven in 10 moderates and liberals. And evangelical Protestants divide about evenly -- 46 percent are in favor of removing the tube, 44 percent opposed. Among non-evangelical Protestants, 77 percent are in favor -- a huge division between evangelical and mainline Protestants.
Conservatives and evangelicals also are more likely to support federal intervention in the case, although it doesn't reach a majority in either group. Indeed, conservative Republicans oppose involving the federal courts, by 57 percent-41 percent.
Conservatives and evangelicals hold these views even though most people in both groups -- 73 percent and 68 percent, respectively -- say that if they personally were in this condition, they would not want to be kept alive.
Should Feeding Tube Be Removed? |
|||
| Support | Oppose | ||
| Non-evangelical | 77% | 18 | |
| Evangelical | 46 | 44 | |
| Catholics | 63 | 26 | |
| Liberals | 68 | 24 | |
| Moderates | 69 | 22 | |
| Conservatives | 54 | 40 | |
| Democrats | 65 | 25 | |
| Independents | 63 | 28 | |
| Republicans | 61 | 34 | |
| Conservative Reps. | 55 | 40 | |
|
|||
Regardless of their preference on the Schiavo case, about two-thirds of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate. And majorities in both groups, as in others, are skeptical of the motivations of the political leaders seeking to extend Schiavo's life.
Should Federal Government Intervene? |
|||
| Support | Oppose | ||
| Non-evangelical | 26% | 71 | |
| Evangelical | 44 | 50 | |
| Catholics | 38 | 56 | |
| Liberals | 34 | 62 | |
| Moderates | 29 | 67 | |
| Conservatives | 48 | 49 | |
| Democrats | 34 | 63 | |
| Independents | 31 | 61 | |
| Republicans | 39 | 58 | |
| Conservative Reps. | 41 | 57 | |
|
|||
Preference and Experience
Public views on this issue are informed in part by Americans' preferences for their own care if they were in a similar situation: Sixteen percent would want life support; as noted, 78 percent would not. While still a very large majority, that's down from 87 percent in an ABC News/Washington Poll last week.
Among people who favor removing Schiavo's life support, 94 percent say that's also what they would want for themselves. By contrast, people who oppose removing the feeding tube in Schiavo's case divide about evenly on what they'd want for themselves: Forty-five percent would want life support, 41 percent would not.
Some speak from experience: A third of Americans say they've had friends or family members who passed away in a hospital or other care facility after life support was removed; nearly two in 10 say they were personally involved in that decision. People who've been personally involved in such a decision are more apt than others to support removing Schiavo's feeding tube and to say they personally would not want life support.
Age and Attention
There are differences among age groups. Senior citizens are more apt than others to strongly support removing Schiavo's feeding tube, and also more apt to oppose federal intervention. And young adults are less likely to say that, as a result of the Schiavo case, they've discussed their own wishes with family or friends.
Just under six in 10 Americans are closely following the Schiavo case, including 16 percent who've been following it very closely -- a respectable albeit not overwhelming level of public attention. Young adults, age 18 to 29, are less than half as likely as their elders to be following the case closely -- just 27 percent are doing so. There's an irony in that result: Schiavo herself was stricken at age 26.
Methodology
This ABC News poll was conducted by telephone March 20, 2005, among a random national sample of 501 adults. The results have a 4.5-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
Her cerebral cortex is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone on to meet its maker. This is a late cerebral cortex. It's a stiff. Bereft of life it rests in peace. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
Hers is an ex-cerebral cortex.
jmc813, her cerebral cortex is liquidfied. It's not there. She has no awareness. She feels no pain. She is not "conscious" even when she's "awake". Her brainstem is performing autonomic functions and keeping her body alive. That's it.
Can't you accede to her wish and allow her to die already?
(BTW, just between us, go around the internet looking for Terri blogs. Compared to them, FR looks like a kindergarten class fighting over the last piece of chocolate. I've never seen such ill-thought-out, immature, emotion-laden, childish, uninformed, incorrect, conspiracy-based, name-calling posts, and that includes the drug threads. The admin mods should pull every single one of these "Terri" threads and hot-link Freepers to where discussions are taking place at an adult level. I'm actually embarrassed as to the FR content. And I respectfully request your opinion on the matter.)
Same situation with Terri, except that she has a living will. What would you support doing?
So do you think we're going the way of Rome in the sense of it's brutality and barbarity? Abandoning babies to die in the countryside of exposure might merely have been the precursor to abandoning them in dumpsters, flushing them down toilets and then going back to dancing at the junior prom, or tearing them limb from limb while still inside of the womb. It's all the culture one lives in, one that values death over life, one wherein the "right to die" becomes, in a few short, slippery steps, the duty to die "for the good of all concerned". Do we as reasoning, compassionate people, then have a responsibility to speak out against such a culture of death?
This isn't about money; it's about votes. Demand and get a quid (i.e., something you want done), and your side had better cough up the pro quo (namely, a bunch of votes in 2006).
The GOP gave you some legislation you wanted--legislation that uses the concept of federalism and limited government as toilet paper--in other words, they clobbered a big chunk of their base to keep you happy.
The religious right had better be able to provide enough votes to win lots of elections and peel away Democrat seats.
In post #160, you state," the GOP leadership has denied they sent this anonymous piece of paper."
In post #165, you then backtracked to "Frist didn't say they sent the memo", after it was shown that he acknowledged its existance (and, I might add, had every opportunity to deny that they sent it).
It was, IIRC, then that I asked for a cite to the "denial".
Then, in post #173, you admitted that no denial exists, to another poster. After that, caught in the web, you have been trying to wriggle out, to high comedy.
"You jump in and demand me provide the evidence that the GOP Leadership did not send out this memo."
False. I asked for a cite to the "denial" you claimed in post #160.
"Had you actually been about seeking truth Senator Frist's own words that he had NOT read the memo was source enough that it did not come from the GOP Leadership."
Nice "lawyering" there, Mr. Clinton.
"You just keep stepping in it time and time again."
I'm just following your footprints.
However, it is obvious that you won't correct the record yourself, and only wish to argue. Again, so typical.
Don't worry, though. Now that I've shown how offbase you can be when confronted with even your own words, I'll just sit back and watch you squirm a while longer without my help.
I do find it funny how you consider yourself to be a good advocate for your side, however.
Cordially,
You haven't seen rage. But you will if I have to ask you three times for something.
The reason is that most people haven't the foggiest notion of what the legitimate role of government is in a free society. That goes for this forum.
Once again, to my eternal chagrin, RP, I agree with you. I've spent the last several posts, in essence, feeding a troll. My bad, but I thought to correct the record so that poster (and any lurkers) might see the error of his ways. Obviously, no such luck. Emotion has triumphed reason and even reality there.
Back to the original topic...I believe that this poll will be confirmed by others over the coming days, and that the lawmakers who bowed before the pressure from the extremist groups (PRIOR to polling data coming out) will begin backtracking, or at least shutting up.
As for those who are so reliably questioning the results and bashing the pollsters, it is fitting to ask now that, were the results exactly REVERSED, would they not be trumpeting them with cries of "VICTORY!"?
"Once again, to my eternal chagrin, RP, I agree with you. I've spent the last several posts, in essence, feeding a troll. My bad, but I thought to correct the record so that poster (and any lurkers) might see the error of his ways. Obviously, no such luck. Emotion has triumphed reason and even reality there."
YOU DID NO SUCH THING AS SEEKING TO CORRECT ANYTHING, YOU LIE YOU PLANT DECEPTION AND YOU ACCUSE.
You have embarrassed yourself.
How is that for setting the RECORD straight.
Yawn. Take a pill before you have a vapor-lock.
Shower first got to get the mud offffffff.
*smile*...Dont even start!
Again, you're wrong.
"The issue is whether Terri would have wanted a feeding tube. The courts decided that she wouldn't, based in part on Michael Schiavo's testimony. Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian, but he chose to allow the court to make the final determination as to whether Terri would have wanted to be maintained in her current state."
"In May of 1998 Michael Schiavo filed a petition for a court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed. In February of 2000, Judge Greer of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted a feeding tube."
You're suggesting that this is a slippery slope. I say it isn't -- not when it's the judge making the determination.
It's even worse, if viewd as the court arrogating guardianship to itself then saying "kill the b*tch."
You are dancing with the ghouls, adoring an abomination.
Because it's soooooo hard to get past the BSMSM's bias, I'd say such a hypothetical outcome would indicate that something like 98+% of Americans agreed.
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.