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 will.
The core group is made up of over 600 wonderful people from all over the country who participated in the vigil in front of the Woodside Hospice.
I will never forget seeing Old Glory flying over the entrance to that death mill, with a flowing fountain nearby.
America had all that cool, refreshing water, and wouldn't give her one drop.
The shame will not easily be washed away...
No, they did not. The oral feeding, as dangerous or inefficient as it might be, was forbidden on the sophist grounds that it was "unwarranted experimental treatment." I.e. it got legally pigeonholed as something that it clearly wasn't.
God gave man free will, and set forth His Commandments.
He could have made it impossible for us to break them.
But He didn't.
Either a person is aware and not a vegetable, or a person is not aware and in a vegetative state.
Even allowing your perjoritive terminology, if a person is unaware, how can he be "miserable"?
You certainly do.
It would not be a nice way to go.
But with morphine to make sure it was painless, I would prefer this to years of being a vegatable with a tube stuck in me and needing people to wipe my butt everyday.
If you are a "vegetable" then you wouldn't be suffering. You wouldn't know what was going on.
If you had a painful, terminal disease, then maybe you would be suffering.
So then, by being complicit even by winking at Terri's murder you have declared yourself guilty by free will.
Oh come on...it's the most litigated case of its kind in history.
"Complicit in Terri's murder?"
Another nutjob...
And in the end the Red Queen succeeded in "off with her head." I hope all involved who refuse to repent are proud when they appear before the Great White Throne.
I agree with that to a point. There are exceptions to every rule, so to speak.
And more importantly...I advocate for the right of family members, spouses included, to reach life and death decisions, within the letter of the law, for their loved ones without the meddling interference of politicians and complete strangers.
I agree that it is the right of each living person to have his or her wishes followed regarding life or death decisions as long as the decision is an informed one and not made by others under "suspicious circumstances". I do not believe Terri's statement, if she did make such a statement, was an informed one nor do I believe Michael Shiavo's actions were based Terri's best interests. I base this opinion on several factors not a single one of them my "feelings".
Yes, that is true. So, you advocate that murder or breaking any other law such as stealing or slaveholding is acceptable because it is possible?
I believe in their soul they can be miserable trapped in limbo in a body that doesn't allow them to live, but doesn't allow them to pass on either.
The medical experts said Terri's brain had liquified.
She wasn't coming back.
I really believe letting her go was painful in the short run but merciful in the long run.
Not necessarily. If you were to ask people "Are you a member of the ruling class of Dracon V", you'd probably get similar poll numbers.
Elian had the law on his side, and the Clinton White House acted outside the law...with the enthusiastic support of many FReepers.
Michael Schiavo has Florida law on his side, and FReepers are screaming for the Federal government to act outside the law.
The Federal government acting outside the law was as wrong then as it is now.
So we will let strangers/govt decide the fate of loved ones?
Yes we can give up our rights but what should be the standard of evidence to determine that we did, especially for the incapacitated or incompetent? On face value the Florida law doesn't seem that out of line since it calls for clear and convincing evidence (though I suppose some may argue that beyond a reasonable doubt would be a better standard). But Greer seems to have taken great latitude with the meaning of clear and convincing.
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.