Zogby Poll: We were not in favor of starving Terri Schiavo

[Frogg]

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 1, 2005

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 hits 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.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio891.html

[Opening Batsman]

Well if I ever end up like she was, I want a bullet in my brains as soon as possible...

[Frogg]

Well if I ever end up like she was, I want a bullet in my brains as soon as possible...

....like she was? Disabled?

In any respect....put it in your living will (and give your spouse a gun).

[askDNA]

I agree with Terri's parents, but I'm sickened by people like Tom DeLay politicizing this.


DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954). And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways. This judicial appointment process is just becoming stupid. Judges shouldn't be asked if they are pro-choice or pro-life, that's not their job, it's their opinion. Congress wastes all its time on questions like that and doesn't even seem to care if a judge is qualified to interpret the law and do his job anymore. F-ing Politics vs. Policy :fork:

[Frogg]

I agree with Terri's parents, but I'm sickened by people like Tom DeLay politicizing this.


DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954). And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways. This judicial appointment process is just becoming stupid. Judges shouldn't be asked if they are pro-choice or pro-life, that's not their job, it's their opinion. Congress wastes all its time on questions like that and doesn't even seem to care if a judge is qualified to interpret the law and do his job anymore. F-ing Politics vs. Policy :fork:

Our judiciary is out of control. But, I agree with you.....there should be no litmus test for judicial nominees.

[Sepper]

Who cares- it wasn't anyone besides Michael Schiavo's decision. The biggest crime is the media publicity on this crap. It's sad enough to be in a vegetative state, but then to have the entire world plaster your face on news bulletins... Maybe it wasn't a good decision to pull the tube. Maybe the courts were doing their job. Maybe this is a wasted month of news reporting when we could be finding out about many other daily-life-affecting agendas. In whichever case you stand for, let's just face it; Terri Schiavo is just 2005's Elian Gonzales. :lol:

[walford]

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954).That case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=537), which enshrined 'separate but equal' on account of race. You basically had one case of legislating from the bench to correct an earlier example of the same. These essential human rights issues should have been handled in Congress, but that would involve open debate and facing the electorate with the consequences. Riiight. That's gonna happen.

And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways.Not just for the United States, but everywhere, new law should originate in a legislative body that is subject to a popular mandate.

To have legislation enacted by an appointed Court that is specifically insulated from popular pressure smacks of the sort of elitism of which Plato described in his Republic (http://utopia-unmasked.us/utopiatext.html#Plato). Only the Virtuous and Knowledgable get to decide what is law for the Greater Good of the rest.

In practice, once that kind of power is concentrated in the hands of the very few, thugs tend to come in, oust the idealists and institute their own version of the Promised Land.

We have been heading down that path for quite some time now. Our elected representatives are demonstrating precious little courage to arrest this process by asserting their authority to be the primary source of new law.

[Frogg]

Another good article on judicial imperialism with some good examples can be found here (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1489).

[drummerguy5]

Who cares- it wasn't anyone besides Michael Schiavo's decision. The biggest crime is the media publicity on this crap. It's sad enough to be in a vegetative state, but then to have the entire world plaster your face on news bulletins... Maybe it wasn't a good decision to pull the tube. Maybe the courts were doing their job. Maybe this is a wasted month of news reporting when we could be finding out about many other daily-life-affecting agendas. In whichever case you stand for, let's just face it; Terri Schiavo is just 2005's Elian Gonzales. Laughing

x2

[gaijinsamurai]

X3

[ElHombre]

I agree with Terri's parents, but I'm sickened by people like Tom DeLay politicizing this.


DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954). And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways. This judicial appointment process is just becoming stupid. Judges shouldn't be asked if they are pro-choice or pro-life, that's not their job, it's their opinion. Congress wastes all its time on questions like that and doesn't even seem to care if a judge is qualified to interpret the law and do his job anymore. F-ing Politics vs. Policy :fork:

tom 'the hammer' delay doesn't give a damn about anything other than power. period. he would cheerfully sell his soul for more. (if he hasn't already) he, quite sincerely, believes that everything he does is approved in advance by god, so that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever he pleases.

at least those nimrods in his district are finally starting to realize what they've been re-electing all these years. :bash:

[walford]

Who cares- it wasn't anyone besides Michael Schiavo's decision. Indeed. As the legal system is currently configured, Terri Schiavo’s demise was a foregone conclusion as soon as her husband decided that he wanted her dead. All of the legal wrangling was merely postponing the inevitable.

Even though he testified during a malpractice trial that he needed funds to care for her during an expected normal lifespan, the law allowed him to halt all but the most minimum of care within months of being paid in 1993. He had every right to use the funds meant for her recovery to spend on a euthanasia lawyer. Even though he made 2 children with another woman, he still retained complete control over Terri's care -- or lack thereof.

He had authority to halt dental maintenence, which led to 5 teeth requiring extraction several years later. He legally forbade all physical therapy and swallowing training -- which would have weaned her off of her remaining means of 'artificial' life support.

He prohibited unrestricted access from blood relatives, issuing orders to prevent her parents from trying to spoon feed her or get her limbs moving. So she originally could move somewhat, but the muscles eventually atrophied.

He had the right to do all of this and then essentially blame her for not recovering after 12 years of neglect.

Privacy has triumphed.

[askDNA]

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954).That case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=537), which enshrined 'separate but equal' on account of race. You basically had one case of legislating from the bench to correct an earlier example of the same. These essential human rights issues should have been handled in Congress, but that would involve open debate and facing the electorate with the consequences. Riiight. That's gonna happen.

And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways.Not just for the United States, but everywhere, new law should originate in a legislative body that is subject to a popular mandate.

To have legislation enacted by an appointed Court that is specifically insulated from popular pressure smacks of the sort of elitism of which Plato described in his Republic (http://utopia-unmasked.us/utopiatext.html#Plato). Only the Virtuous and Knowledgable get to decide what is law for the Greater Good of the rest.

In practice, once that kind of power is concentrated in the hands of the very few, thugs tend to come in, oust the idealists and institute their own version of the Promised Land.

We have been heading down that path for quite some time now. Our elected representatives are demonstrating precious little courage to arrest this process by asserting their authority to be the primary source of new law.

In Brown, I was talking about how most Americans supported segregation but the court had the balls to do the right thing. But thanks for the insight about that though

[askDNA]

I agree with Terri's parents, but I'm sickened by people like Tom DeLay politicizing this.


DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954). And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways. This judicial appointment process is just becoming stupid. Judges shouldn't be asked if they are pro-choice or pro-life, that's not their job, it's their opinion. Congress wastes all its time on questions like that and doesn't even seem to care if a judge is qualified to interpret the law and do his job anymore. F-ing Politics vs. Policy :fork:

tom 'the hammer' delay doesn't give a damn about anything other than power. period. he would cheerfully sell his soul for more. (if he hasn't already) he, quite sincerely, believes that everything he does is approved in advance by god, so that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever he pleases.

at least those nimrods in his district are finally starting to realize what they've been re-electing all these years. :bash:

Yeah, DeLay has the second smallest margin of victory of all the Republican Congressmen from Texas (only 55% of vote).

[Durandal]

Ah, so we can have personal freedoms and civil liberties so long as a majority agrees.

Nice.

I own a farm...till a majority say the can make better use of it. Then they take it.

I want to own guns...till a majority say I cannot.

I want to marry the person of my choosing...till the majority says I cannot.

I want to travel outside my state...till the majority says I cannot.

I want to vote...till the majority says I cannot.

I want to die...till the majority says I cannot.

I want to live...till the majority says I cannot.

We are walking on dangerous grounds. When we decide that the wishes of the individual in personal matters is superseded by the greater will of the majority. We are not a pure democracy, but a representative democratic republic. Our founding forefathers understood the importance of the individual's rights over the gang mentality of the majority.

Thankfully...

But we see that being eroded by speeches of "what WE want" rather than what "he" or "she" wants.

Dangerous times people...dangerous times.

[priccobe]

I agree with Terri's parents, but I'm sickened by people like Tom DeLay politicizing this.


DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

Does he not understand that the courts aren't made for upholding popular opinion? I guess he forgot about Brown v. Board of Education (1954). And no, I'm not a liberal lunatic. I think Roe v. Wade was an activist, but so was Bush v. Gore, because that case totally ignored the Consitution where it specifically says if there is a dispute it goes to the Federal House of Representatives, where Bush would have won anyways. This judicial appointment process is just becoming stupid. Judges shouldn't be asked if they are pro-choice or pro-life, that's not their job, it's their opinion. Congress wastes all its time on questions like that and doesn't even seem to care if a judge is qualified to interpret the law and do his job anymore. F-ing Politics vs. Policy :fork:

tom 'the hammer' delay doesn't give a damn about anything other than power. period. he would cheerfully sell his soul for more. (if he hasn't already) he, quite sincerely, believes that everything he does is approved in advance by god, so that there is nothing wrong with doing whatever he pleases.

at least those nimrods in his district are finally starting to realize what they've been re-electing all these years. :bash:
Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Do you have any solid, non-hearsay info?

[walford]

Ah, so we can have personal freedoms and civil liberties so long as a majority agrees....
But we see that being eroded by speeches of "what WE want" rather than what "he" or "she" wants.Don't worry, hubby got what HE wanted. He got to spend the money meant for his wife's care on lawyers to kill her -- and a new Mercedes. Terri's rights were not considered in the matter, because legally they were put in the husband's hands, even though he made sure that she would have no rehabilitative therapy and made a new family with another **** receptacle.

One lawyer on this board characterized this as Terri legally pulling her own plug. Apparently she also legally forbade herself being taught to swallow so that she could survive being removed from the feeding tube. We couldn't have that, could we?

Hubby's rights were further honored by having the body cremated before any thorourgh forensic investigation of her condition or prior injuries was done. There was no thougt of impounding the body pending an investigation -- hubby owned it. There was doubt as to her condition and wishes and the default was death. woot

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Secret Squirrel]

One lawyer on this board characterized this as Terri legally pulling her own plug. Apparently she also legally forbade herself being taught to swallow so that she could survive being removed from the feeding tube. We couldn't have that, could we?

Nice assumption. After 1996, the only thing left in her head was spinal fluid and connective brain tissue (also there was no electrical activity). Tell us all how someone is suppose to live their life essentially without a brain?


Hubby's rights were further honored by having the body cremated before any thorourgh forensic investigation of her condition or prior injuries was done. There was no thougt of impounding the body pending an investigation -- hubby owned it. There was doubt as to her condition and wishes and the default was death. woot

Nothing to see here, move along.

More assumptions based on what? Let me answer that for you; based on nothing. ;) Just more conspiracey theories that always follow a media frenzy.

If anything good is to come from this circus, it should be educating people on the dangers of eating disorders.

[walford]

Nice assumption. After 1996, the only thing left in her head was spinal fluid and connective brain tissue (also there was no electrical activity). Tell us all how someone is suppose to live their life essentially without a brain?This is the first I've heard of no brain activity. This video (http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terrimum.ram) was taken after 1996. Others show her following objects with her eyes and turning her head. [Soon after the vids were released, hubby forbade any more being made.] No electrical activity will allow that? Where are these medical reports? I'm not saying that the video proves sentience, but it is arguably enough to cast doubt as to turnip status.


Hubby's rights were further honored by having the body cremated before any thorourgh forensic investigation of her condition or prior injuries was done. There was no thought of impounding the body pending an investigation -- hubby owned it. There was doubt as to her condition and wishes and the default was death. Nothing to see here, move along.More assumptions based on what? Let me answer that for you; based on nothing. Just more conspiracey theories that always follow a media frenzy.Schiavo autopsy will not certify vegetative state, some experts say (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/111235171578830.xml)An autopsy will not prove once and for all that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, yet it may support such a diagnosis, some experts say....

"...You can't tell based on an autopsy whether somebody was in a persistent vegetative state when they were alive," said Dr. Michael De Georgia, director of the Neurology/Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit at the Cleveland Clinic. "It could be consistent with that diagnosis, but you can't extrapolate from the tissue to what somebody looked like clinically..."Doctors who examined her disagreed on her condition. There was doubt. [Likely she was brain-damaged, but not brain-dead.] She was forbidden therapy [that would have established her condition by demonstrable behavior] and possibly weaned her off the feeding tube. The only people who seem to be certain as to her condition were those on the side of death.

If anything good is to come from this circus, it should be educating people on the dangers of eating disorders.Another thing to bear in mind is when you get married you are making a legal statement that you trust that person more with your life than your own blood relatives. You are giving legal permission to forbid rehab therapy and then blame you for not recovering -- even if he starts porking somebody else while you lay helpless on a bed.

Remember that before you pop the question/say yes.

[Secret Squirrel]

Nice assumption. After 1996, the only thing left in her head was spinal fluid and connective brain tissue (also there was no electrical activity). Tell us all how someone is suppose to live their life essentially without a brain?This is the first I've heard of no brain activity. This video (http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terrimum.ram) was taken after 1996. Others show her following objects with her eyes and turning her head. [Soon after the vids were released, hubby forbade any more being made.] No electrical activity will allow that? Where are these medical reports?

Yep, connective brain tissue with a brain stem keeps autonomic functions going. She's not responsive to anything; the video shows random movements.




Hubby's rights were further honored by having the body cremated before any thorourgh forensic investigation of her condition or prior injuries was done. There was no thougt of impounding the body pending an investigation -- hubby owned it. There was doubt as to her condition and wishes and the default was death. Nothing to see here, move along.More assumptions based on what? Let me answer that for you; based on nothing. Just more conspiracey theories that always follow a media frenzy.Schiavo autopsy will not certify vegetative state, some experts say (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/111235171578830.xml)An autopsy will not prove once and for all that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, yet it may support such a diagnosis, some experts say....

"...You can't tell based on an autopsy whether somebody was in a persistent vegetative state when they were alive," said Dr. Michael De Georgia, director of the Neurology/Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit at the Cleveland Clinic. "It could be consistent with that diagnosis, but you can't extrapolate from the tissue to what somebody looked like clinically..."Doctors who examined her disagreed on her condition. There was doubt. [Likely she was brain-damaged, but not brain-dead.] She was forbidden therapy [that would have established her condition by demonstrable behavior] and possibly weaned her off the feeding tube. The only people who seem to be certain as to her condition were those on the side of death.

Again you repeat the assumption about swallowing. Why? There's no point to even mention it because it's a moot point that you cant prove. We'll have to wait for the results from the autospy, which you predicted would not occur, before you can conclude some of this dispute. You also failed to quote the part that explains what they will be looking for and how they will reach their conclusions. ;) Oh and there was doubt? YOu mean by the doctors who made claims that they couldnt support? Or how about the claims that the family said Terri was talking? Saying she wanted to live? It's all wishful thinking and mounds of horse****. Also, the only reason the claims of abuse occured were to try and have Terri become property of the state to keep her alive. But of course everyone on the side of the husband is just part of the big conspiracey theory right?



If anything good is to come from this circus, it should be educating people on the dangers of eating disorders.Another thing to bear in mind is when you get married you are making a legal statement that you trust that person more with your life than your own blood relatives. You are giving legal permission to forbid rehab therapy and then blame you for not recovering -- even if he starts porking somebody else while you lay helpless on a bed.

Remember that before you pop the question/say yes.

If she was in texas, she'd probably have died a long time ago. Maybe, along with your attempted b.s warning, you'll want to include that.

[walford]

Yep, connective brain tissue with a brain stem keeps autonomic functions going. She's not responsive to anything; the video shows random movements.Other doctors who examined her said otherwise. Nurses who attended her said otherwise. Like I said, the only ones certain about her condition were on the side of death.

Be happy. She's dead. And so will be many more like her.

It used to be people who were lying motionless on a bed and showed a flatline EKG. Now it's people who have their eyes open and move, but cannot talk. If we're not sure, choose death.

[Secret Squirrel]

Yep, connective brain tissue with a brain stem keeps autonomic functions going. She's not responsive to anything; the video shows random movements.Other doctors who examined her said otherwise. Nurses who attended her said otherwise. Like I said, the only ones certain about her condition were on the side of death.

Be happy. She's dead. And so will be many more like her.

It used to be people who were lying motionless on a bed and showed a flatline EKG. Now it's people who have their eyes open and move, but cannot talk. If we're not sure, choose death.

Of course the only ones certain or, better stated, that can defend their conclusions are on the side of death. It's a simple fact that her head was full of spinal fluid and connective brain tissue. Saying Terri was brain damaged is like saying someone without arms is "arm damaged". It's not a simple case of Terri being a mute or not able to talk. She was a shell with nutters making idiotic conclusions because of her autonomic functions.

[fisheyestudio]

Hey howdy hey!

Well said Walford! I have been following this case since 2001. It amazes me the attitudes and comments of some people concerning what has happened. You can say it any way you want but it comes down to the fact that the Government of the United States of America allowed one of its citizens to be starved and dehydrated to death. May Jesus have mercy on any nations that finds a way to justify this action....
Jesus blessings!
chris

[walford]

Haven't heard much from you lately, fisheye, good to see you're still kicking. You know that citing your religion automatically discredits you in the eyes of Our Betters. My own perspective on this issue is one of human rights.

However, those who cloak putting the lives of innocents in the hands of individuals with conflicts of interest -- supported by an all too willing judiciary -- as 'privacy' are characterizing their opponents as religious kooks who want to cruelly keep a warm piece of meat alive because their Sunday School teacher said so.

The Mainstream Media is only too happy to promulgate this canard. Further, even though there was doubt as to her condition, the public was repeatedly bludgeoned with the mantra that she was a turnip. Then when we saw that she followed a balloon with her eyes and turned her head, we were told those movements were something akin to what a chicken does when you cut its head off.

When asked if she suffered when she starved, we were told no, that it is a painless death. [After over a week of starvation, Felos said she never looked more beautiful -- but blood relatives were frisked for cameras.] We were not told a woman's story (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/370oqiwy.asp?pg=2) who actually experienced the agony for eight days -- having been mis-diagnosed as PVS herself. Big Media also spared us how the loving hubby did not recall his wife's wishes for death until after recieving a large malpractice award to provide medical care for a normal expected lifespan.

Throughout, the tacit implication was that every breath she took was a further Burden on Society.

Wait until the Baby Boomers get a bit older...