80%: Non-Terminal Patients Should Not be Denied Food, Water-Zogby Poll

[adios]

I thought the mainstream media was stating that most Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to congress intervening in the Schiavo case? I guess 80% could be opposed to the way Terri Schiavo's life was terminated and be opposed to congressional intervention in the case. That's certainly not what this Zogby poll shows though:



80%: Non-Terminal Patients Should Not be Denied Food, Water; (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378901/posts)

[Dead]

Terri was terminal. She had zero chance of getting better.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Terri was terminal. She had zero chance of getting better.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are you defining terminal?

[adios]

The poll stated terminally ill which is generally considered to be 12 months or less to live. Your terminal, I'm terminal. There are no survivors.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Terri was terminal. She had zero chance of getting better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead, some people with spinal injuries have zero chance of getting better, and will be confined to a wheelchair the rest of their lives. Do you think they should be killed because they have "zero chance of getting better"?

Severely retarded people have "zero chance of getting better". Do you think they should be killed?

What about cancer patients, as soon as they are diagnosed as uncurable? Should they be killed ASAP?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terri was terminal. She had zero chance of getting better.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are you defining terminal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not defining, but I would consider someone as brain damaged as Terri was to be terminal. So would 80% of Americans I bet.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Should they be killed ASAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it should be their decision.

Terri wanted to die. So she died. You interfering in the application of that decision is horrible.

[MMMMMM]

You believing, instead of holding grave doubts, that she wanted to die, is horrible.

[ACPlayer]

Where is the 80 percent?

What is far more satisfying to me is that a majority disagreed with
[ QUOTE ]
Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?


[/ QUOTE ]
and more people diagreed than agreed with:

[ QUOTE ]
The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?


[/ QUOTE ]

Bush and Bush behaved completely irresponsibly in this episode.

[bholdr]

IMO, terry schrivo was terminal.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess 80% could be opposed to the way Terri Schiavo's life was terminated and be opposed to congressional intervention in the case. That's certainly not what this Zogby poll shows though:

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some obvious problems in the Zogby poll; the questions didn't specifically ask about the Schiavo case at all! Some examples:

"It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order?"

As evidenced by most of the debate in this post, 'disabled' is a subjective term. When people think of 'disabled', they are certainly capable of thinking of Terri Schiavo; they're also capable of considering their friend with a cane. If the poll had replaced 'disabled people' with 'people who are brain dead', there would likely have been different results.

Is 'brain dead' subjective? Of course. But no more subjective than 'disabled' is.

Another Question: "The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?"

Again, I believe the same problem with the word 'disabled' exists. Secondly, it wasn't asked in the poll if the respondents thought Terri Schiavo was having her basic rights denied; just 'disabled' people.

This problem exists in all 5 questions that asked the respondents about government intervention; nowhere in the poll is Terri Schiavo mentioned in a question that also asked about government intervention. I wonder if the results would change if a pollster asked about the Schiavo case specifically?

Refer to the 4th Question of the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (April 1-2, 2005) and the 3rd and 4th Questions of the Time Poll (March 22-24) (http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the mainstream media was stating that most Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to congress intervening in the Schiavo case? I guess 80% could be opposed to the way Terri Schiavo's life was terminated and be opposed to congressional intervention in the case. That's certainly not what this Zogby poll shows though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The American public (if your poll (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378901/posts) is reasonably accurate) seems extremely weary of doctors deciding when to pull the plug on a terminally ill patient. The reason, I'd speculate, is mistrust of doctors' intentions. I happen to agree with this suspicious attitude.

The public seems also extremely weary of government or Congress interfering with a matter that is in the courts' jurisdiction -- if we are to believe the relevant polls. Also, very, very correct, in my humble opinion.

No contradiction at all! As a matter of fact, a very healthy attitude.

[adios]

Nice post Cyrus. Asking specifically about the Schiavo case is much different than asking these more general questions as you more or less point out. My point is that the media spin is such that the Republicans in Congress have been hurt badly by the Schiavo case but I think this poll refutes that notion. To me it shows that the public was fairly certain that the judicial process in the Schiavo case was a fair one and it was more or less proven in Court that she did not wish to live in a PVS. Note the following question:

Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?


38% Agree
54% Disagree
8% No opinion

To me this answer reflects the sentiment that if a person does not want to live in a PVS they have the right to die.



The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?


57% Agree
33% Disagree
10% No opinion

Your take would be that in the Schiavo case the basic rights of minorities were not violated I'm assuming and I think that's how I'd interpret these results.


Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her?

56% - Agree
35% - Disagree
9% - No opinion

This seems to conflict with the Court decisions in the case but I think it might be fair to say that people believe the rule of law should prevail even though they don't necessarily like the law. FWIW it seems fairly clear that the case was never made convincingly that Michael Schiavo was an unfit guardian.

The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse?

46% - Agree
39 - Disagree
15 - No opinion

I think it's fair to say that this question is quite open ended. I would think that it would be hard to find a consensus on what those exceptions might be. Elwoods points on this issue were quite good I thought.


It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order?


44% - Agree
43% - Disagree
13% - No opinion

I think these results are consistent with your take.

The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?


42% - Agree
48% - Disagree
10% - No opinion

Again I think this answer is consistent with your take.

Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?

31% - Agree
57% - Disagree
12% - No opinion

In the absence of any recorded info how else would the courts determine what a person in a PVS would have wanted? This answer seems to contradict the conclusion that the public was satisfied that the legal process served Terri Schiavo's wishes satisfactirolly. My understanding is that the judge in this case made his determination regarding Terri's wish to die based on Michael Schiavo's testimony, his brother's testimony, his sister-in-laws testimony, and what people her age would desire. Not sure but wasn't this testimony hearsay?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
You believing, instead of holding grave doubts, that she wanted to die, is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about it, MMMMMM, and I changed my opinion on it. People can do that, right?

I realized that in order to support your side, I would have to believe all of these incredible awful things that people were saying about Terri's husband. Having seen no proof of these allegations, and having seen lots of proof opposing them, I changed my view.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

You believing, instead of holding grave doubts, that she wanted to die, is horrible.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I thought about it, MMMMMM, and I changed my opinion on it. People can do that, right?

I realized that in order to support your side, I would have to believe all of these incredible awful things that people were saying about Terri's husband.

[/ QUOTE ]


One does NOT have to believe ill of Michael Schiavo and his motives, one only need be uncertain of his motives, in order to warrant holding serious doubts as to whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die.

[MMMMMM]

^

[ACPlayer]

From this poll how do you conclude the level of distrust in the doctor's opinion?

If at all the public is sceptical about the application of guardianship law in this case. There is some merit in that scepticism as a general matter of human nature. However, we should realize that any law will find an exception and another heart rending incident.

THe poll is actually very gratifying in that the public has a great deal of faith in the judicial process and has far less faith in the legislative/executive in this type of micromanagement. This is as it should be.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
One does NOT have to believe ill of Michael Schiavo and his motives, one only need be uncertain of his motives, in order to warrant holding serious doubts as to whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die.

[/ QUOTE ]
So any uncertainty, leads to serious doubt? Not 'doubt' or 'some doubt'?

[Voltron87]

I haven't read the thread, but public opinion does not have any effect on what a person's wishes are.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
One does NOT have to believe ill of Michael Schiavo and his motives, one only need be uncertain of his motives, in order to warrant holding serious doubts as to whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So any uncertainty, leads to serious doubt? Not 'doubt' or 'some doubt'?


[/ QUOTE ]

RogerZBT,

I wrote "serious doubts", not "serious doubt"--see the difference in meaning here?

[Cyrus]

If there is doubt, there is no doubt...


[ QUOTE ]
One does NOT have to believe ill of Michael Schiavo and his motives, one only need be uncertain of his motives, in order to warrant holding serious doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One does NOT have to believe ill of Michael Schiavo and his motives, one only need be uncertain of his motives, in order to warrant holding serious doubts as to whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die.
---------------------------------------------------------------
So any uncertainty, leads to serious doubt? Not 'doubt' or 'some doubt'?


[/ QUOTE ]

RogerZBT,

I wrote "serious doubts", not "serious doubt"--see the difference in meaning here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry...

So any uncertainty, leads to serious doubts? Not 'doubts' or 'some doubts'?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terri was terminal. She had zero chance of getting better.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are you defining terminal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not defining, but I would consider someone as brain damaged as Terri was to be terminal. So would 80% of Americans I bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the results of the PET scans???? Oh yea, they were never done......

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Terri wanted to die. So she died. You interfering in the application of that decision is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me where she said she wanted to die.

[MMMMMM]

Hi RogerZBT,

First of all, there were serious uncertainties. The judge however apparently ruled in accordance with the laws of probate which only require a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So the fact that there were some serious or genuine doubts as to Terri's wishes is not necessarily inconsistent with his ruling.

I think that in life/death scenarios, the standard of evidence or proof should be raised. In the Schiavo case, the state enforced the deprivation of the sustenance of life which made this in many ways a capital case, though not a criminal case. I think the bar should be set higher before the state can use its powers to enforce death.

Terri Schiavo's parents were willing to care for her, but the state would not allow that and instead ensured that she would be starved/dehydrated to death whilst genuine doubts remained as to her wishes. Yes, the judge had ruled on her wishes, but only on a preponderance of the evidence basis. Not good enough IMO when a person's life is at stake. I think the law should be changed to provide for more protection.

Life cannot be taken by the state in capital cases without a FAR higher burden of proof and I don't think the guardian and a judge should be able to so easily take life with so little barrier afforded for the protection of the helpless individual. Granted it wasn't 'easy' in the Schiavo case due to the national exposre and repeated appeals etc. but in many cases it is pretty easy for one guardian and one judge to oder the death of a patient. And it happens a lot.

In general considerations, I also think the slide towards euthanasia is a very dangerous slippery slope.

[RogerZBT]

But now you're saying you feel there were "serious" uncertainties. That's kinda my question. If there's any question about someone's motives (which there will always be. You can question her parent's motives as well), does it still lead to "serious doubt(s)"?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But now you're saying you feel there were "serious" uncertainties. That's kinda my question. If there's any question about someone's motives (which there will always be. You can question her parent's motives as well), does it still lead to "serious doubt(s)"?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Schiavo case, there were numerous reasons to question Michael Schiavo's motives, and his appropriateness as her guardian. It was more than just "an uncertainty"; there were specific reasons why his guardianship and testimony were more worthy of doubt than might be normal.