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.
Like the Terri starvers?
someone unable to swallow need to be constantly aspirated or they choke.
Terri did not need this
"well i can guarantee the poll itself was not a joke, because i took it"
Thanks for letting us know.
For each new word you learn, you think you have a new fact.
You sound very un-American and anti-Christian.
Courts are reluctant to overrule other courts. Michael was Terri's official husband.
We need to take a hard look at these laws. Terri's parents and siblings were (IMO) obviously better qualified for that role.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I. Terminal means you are going to die OF the disease... not die WITH the disease.
Congress did. But judgeskings ignored it.
believe it or not .
in fl hearsay evident by a spouse or inlaw in
allowed.
"Terri's brain was damaged beyond repair."
So, are you in favor of the state killing everyone whose brains is "damaged beyond repair", as in people who had strokes, Down Syndrome, retarded kids, etc. What is the damage point, below which you think that people should be killed?
The judge determined in his ruling based on evidence from court appointed medical team that Terri was in a PVS and thus could not swallow. When he gave the ruling to pull the life support (feeding tube is life support order Florida statue). As part of that ruling he did not allow outsiders to come in and try and interfere with that decision. If she could swallow water on her own she would not have been allowed to die of a natural death (natural for someone in her condition (can't drink or eat) - just like death from kidney failure or heart failure is a natural death for someone in that condition).
also - there were several nurses who took care of Terri who gave affidavits that she not only could swallow - but they had fed her jello, ice cream etc and the she enjoyed it - but they were refused to even try to feed her by mouth - or be arrested.
Now, you're such an advocate of :Michael testified..."
Why shouldn't these nurses have been heard?
Not true...The FSC threw it out and the USSC refused to hear it.
Why always! A person should have the right to starve himself for no better reason than having the blues.
Greer threw it out first. There doesn't seem to be a conservative law that the FSC likes.
People who are mentaly handicapped and even in comas are conscious unlike people in a PVS.
Ah, you admit it! The goal was to kill her, not just to free her of tubes.
As far as the guardian thing, the Schindler attorneys petitioned Judge Greer first (and, I think, the judge prior to Greer). Greer denied the petitions and didn't rule timely on others. The appeals courts agreed with the procedure -- Greer had a right to deny the petition (without saying whether or not he should have denied the petition).
The same thing happened when they asked Greer to recuse himself several times. He said no. Appeals courts said he had a right to say no. No one else looked at the facts as to whether or not there were grounds to remove MS as guardian or Greer as judge.
They granted jurisdiction. They did nothing else ... nothing ... nada ... null set. It turned out, no appropriate legal tools were afforded. I would have been hard pressed to at once do my duty as a federal judge, and come to a different result. Poor lawyering made it worse, but as a federal judge, I would have handled that without much problem. I would have explained what needed to be done. That was not the problem, in the end. On this one, I am rather confident of my opinion now, after having gone this way and that.
Said nurses never testified to that fact in court.
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.