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.
The finding was reviewed, but under the law, near impossible to reverse. That's the rub.
Once the Schindlers said they would chop off all her limbs and rip out her heart to keep her body breathing even if they knew she would not wish for that, what would you have done if you were Michael.
It took Bobby Sands 66 days to die that way.
Luis, since when have you become the definer of what is allowed or disallowed for someone to be pro-life? [I recall our debate regarding the death penalty and my anti-abortion beliefs.] And I thought you were a Catholic ... and you know what The Holy Father says about food and water for disabled people. I am kind of surprised to hear you so worshipful of Ken Starr though ... and I happened to have listened to him when he said he had not dug into this case and used qualifiers like 'it appears' and 'it is likely that' when asked to pronounce validity upon the court process in Florida.
I would like to see that statement in a cout transcript and hear what kind of question was asked..
BS
It is comforting for all of us though to know how well we are all doing with this experimental technique of nutrition and hydration by mouth. Most people I know have survived this experimentation since birth. /sarcasm
who is Bobby sands?
This is very important to you, isn't it?
Look at the definition of legal death, brain death, cardiac death, etc. It varies by state.
In Texas, brain death can be used for those on life support - a ventilator and/or a pacemaker. In that case, there is no function in the brain stem. The gold standard, in disputed cases, is a blood flow study of the brain stem, which should show no blood flow at all. I wouldn't be surprised if a PET scan becomes the standard in the future. In obvious cases, as in severe trauma to the head or after a stroke and when there is no drug being used that could depress the Central Nervous System, EEG's that show no brain wave activity in the brain stem could be acceptable.
In cases where a person is found pulseless and without respiration by paramedics, they are usually required to find other signs, such as a documented time since collapse, pooling of blood, severe chest trauma, etc., although that may vary by local criteria.
Of five doctors who examined Terri for the courts, three said she was pvs and two said she wasn't. With the inclusion of the DCF doctor, that makes it a tie, 3 to 3.
50 doctors sent statements to the courts which said Terri could be rehabilitated.
Nurses who cared for Terri, Terri's family, friends and priests all said Terri was responsive.
Still can't answer the question?
Ah, so you also don't believe abortion is murder.
The links are here.
Should be easy for you to find.
Google is your friend.
That was not mean spirited. I was listing events that could cause any of us to find ourselves dependent on others for our care.
Your reaction on the other hand, underlines your inability to identify with others in an empathetic way. Extrapolate. This is not all about you.
Law and government guns affect more than one person at a time.
The Holy Father no more runs Florida Courts than the Florida Judiciary runs the Vatican.
And it became "not murder" once the Federal government became involved on something traditionally (and Constitutionally) left to the States.
But why would we actually learn from that?
This was the whole problem with the case. It's like Greer heard evidence 3 to 2 that the world was flat. He threw out testimony that he thought was biased or wrong and then ruled that the world was flat.
Thereafter, no matter how much evidence was presented that the world was round, it just didn't matter, as Greer had already declared it to be legal fact that the world was flat.
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.