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.
So, your scenario about the parents choosing to withhold food is wrong and is also inflammatory to the discussion.
Right! This is not an ordinary cut and dried case. There are circumstances that the general public doesn't have a clue about unless they inform themselves and I think this poll just might have run across these particular people.
My Democrat coworker, who BTW is Muslim, from Egypt, and agrees with EVERYTHING the Democrats say usually, is totally appalled that this woman is being starved when her family wants to take care of her.
It's as simple as that.
I really don't think this is a very complicated moral dilemma.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Do you doubt for a minute that the Congressional Republicans AREN'T? If so, wait a week as more polls come out and they all drop this like a red-hot rivet. Prior to now, all they had were the emails, letters, and phone calls of a small but vocal minority to go on. Now they have polling data, with more to come.
It's not gonna be pretty.
Since most of the same extremists supporting THAT outcome also are the ones who brought about this fiasco, don't hold your breath. Lawmakers don't listen well to fanatics, especially after polls come out.
Well actually Roman fathers (Paterfamilias) had the power of life and death over every member of their family. If a Roman father didn't want to raise a newborn as a citizen for any reason, or for no reason at all, the baby could be abandoned, usually in the countryside to die of exposure.
Cordially,
Unfortunately, there is a contingent right here on Free Republic that, though they understand the facts, still prefer her murder. Like the pro-aborts who will look you straight in the eye and say, "of course it's a baby, but it's the mother's choice".
Well, why "What I would want is relevant" is because that is what the poll was asking people, I was just simply answering the question.
Yes God is in control, and yes family members do love and care for their own. However, the court gave Michael Schiavo guardianship of his wife, even though her family stated that they would care for her.
So the courts made a bad decision years ago. Micheal Schiavo obviously lied when he said he would go to nursing school and care for his wife at home. These facts should have been enough to give guardianship to the parents. But that hasn't happened. Now she has been deteriorating for 15 years. Its very sad.
***************
Well said. Very well said.
I support ALL research with adult stem cells as well as with umbilical cord and placental cells. I object to the creation of life for the purpose of destroying it.
And, in this case, I object to the destruction of life for the sake of the convenience of others.
I see nothing contradictory in these positions.
That's not true.
We have his sworn testimony along with his brother Scott's sworn testimony along with Terri's best friend, Joan's sworn testimony.
I hadn't heard that before.
Wheat and tares.
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.