I had a feeling that liberals were blowing smoke up our collective butts with the claim that the majority of Americans thought Terri Schiavo was better off dead than alive. Pull the plug they screamed - the Republicans believe it too, they're just using the issue to solidify their pro-life base - most normal people want Michael Schiavo be free of that parasite!
It turns out that if the poll questions were detailed enough to be clear as opposed to rigged to create a desired response, the moral values of the American people become clear.
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.
My faith in American society has been restored.
By the way, here are the results of the ABC poll taken back in March. Is this a leading question to you? Compare it to the ones above.
Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.
Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her
husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.
What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to
remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?
63 percent were in favor of leaving the tube out and only 28 percent in favor.
7 comments:
Well, if nothing else, this issue has firmly put to rest the falsehood that Republican party and their leaders are the "conservative, small government" party.
The government should not have interfered. It should remain a private matter. And the only reason they did was because the GOP thinks that it's more appropriate to legislate their religious beliefs than actually remaining true to their fundamental principles.
I think it's incredibly sad that the husband wasn't able to exercise his rights as his wife's guardian in peace. I think it's shameful that after 20+ court cases and a whole string of well-credentialed experts declared the woman to have no higher brain function, GOP leaders decided that medical evidence was wrong based on _no evidence whatsoever_ except a need to villify the court system because it furthers their own agenda and multiple grabs for power. (Basic Constitutional averages: weaken the courts and Congress and the Executive branch gain power.)
I think it's disgusting that people like Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough and Rush Limbaugh announced that there were no CAT Scans or MRIs taken of Ms. Schiavo's brain repeatedly, on the air to their listeners -- absolute falsehoods. And don't get me started on Congressional leaders making statements that can easily be construed as threats against sitting judges.
And don't get me started on our President rushing back to the White House. We're fighting two wars and there are no more important priorities on his plate?
I'll tell you this much: your sister and I completely agree that we would want feeding tubes removed if we were in the same situation. If either of us were (G-d forbid) In the same situation as Michael Shiavo, we'd be absolutely horrified and outraged that our government thought someone else's religious-extremist opinions should be imposed upon us against our wishes.
Do you mean to tell me that if your mother wanted to keep your feeding tubes in and Robin (who had already had two children by another man) said "f you" and I'll ruin you financially if you don't let me put your son in the ground, that would be OK with you?
We're fighting two wars that are winding down by the way. I think things are pretty well under control.
Thou shalt not kill - should Congress not be involved in legislating regarding murder because it is a religious tenet to not kill people.
Etc.
A few other points.
This wasn't the simply the government going against Michael Schiavo's wishes, but against Terri's own parents.
Isn't our whole criminal justice system based on the government acting in defense of society's principals and laws? Aren't cases labeled as "The People vs. ...."? The last time I checked, the Congress represents The People of this country and all they were doing were passing a law so that the courts could continue to review the case, not to legislate an outcome.
Killing someone is not a private matter no matter how poor or even non-existent that person's quality of life is. I assume that this torturous process occurred specifically becuase by all definitions Terri Schiavo was alive.
Although it's become a cliche, I too prefer to live in a society that errs on the side of life, especially when someone (especially the parents) are willing to foot the bill and take care of that life.
The answer to your question is "Hell no and absolutely not."
Have you ever been in a situation where such a decision is necessary? I have. My grandfather was placed on a respirator against his express wishes, stated quite clearly in his DNR. My grandmother, as next of kin, overrode his wishes because she was unable to deal with his death. I spent four weeks watching the man live in a manner I was well aware he would have absolutely hated. Our whole family knew she had gone against his wishes. In the end, my grandmother removed him from the respirator not because she wanted to respect what he wanted, but because she was unable to deal with watching him move aimlessly in his bed, breathe with a respirator and know he would never wake up.
I will never allow someone to do that to me. I will never allow anyone to do that to my wife. Period.
My wife is my next of kin and is also authorized to make all decisions for me, and I rely on her and trust her carry out my wishes. This is not a right I have granted anyone else in our family. No one in my family should have the ability to go against my wishes. In addition, I've stated my wishes quite clearly and so has my wife.
I do not wish to be a burden, financial, emotional or otherwise to my family under any circumstances, nor do I think my existence should be sustained if I have no higher brain function or hope of being "me" in any forseeable future.
Your sister has made it quite clear to me that she feels the same way.
Neither of us feel that going through life without the ability to think and be "us" is what we want.
I'm her legal guardian -- a responsibility I take very, very seriously. As such I would fight for her wishes to be respected to my last breath. To do otherwise would violate our trust and love.
Why in the world would I wish to perpetuate a life which will torture the people I love?
Sorry, I thought I was quite clear on this. Elected US officials should not involve themselves or our government in private matters based on their religious beliefs.
If said official thinks murder is wrong and wants to abolish the death penalty based on secular reasons, such as it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, that's fine.
But they had better not say that they think it's wrong because their Bible, Koran, Torah, Jesus, Allah, G-d, Buddha, Holy Spirit or Saint Christopher says so. The moment that begins in earnest, my family and I will leave this country to the religious fundamentalist whackos who think they have a G-d-given right to tell us what we should believe.
Inevitable forced conversions and inquisitions would be right around the corner. Don't believe me? Read some William F. Buckley on why Jews should be forced to follow Jesus. Enlightening it ain't.
I have a question: do you think you should be able to force everyone in this country to bury their loved ones whole? Do you think we should abolish cremation throughout the US because your holy books and religious leaders say it's wrong?
Christian fundamentalists answer "YES!! PRAISE JESUS!!" to this and similar questions and state that what others believe is barbaric, immoral and outdated. Do you think they're right?
This wasn't the simply the government going against Michael Schiavo's wishes, but against Terri's own parents.
The issue wasn't Terri's parents. It was a) what Terri would have wanted, (b) who was her legal guardian, and (c) was she truly brain-dead. The answers to those questions were answered as "Yes, Michael Shiavo and Yes" by more than 20 separate court decisions. There were very, very clear reasons why the courts decided this. I think you need to go and read their decisions and learn the reasons. When you have, come back to me and explain please, why the courts decided the way they did.
Isn't our whole criminal justice system based on the government acting in defense of society's principals and laws?
This wasn't a criminal case. It was a domestic dispute between parties. No crime had been committed and it was therefore not a matter for the whole of society, but for those two involved parties. The cases weren't "The People of Florida v. Shiavo." It was "Schindler v. Shiavo."
The courts did not pass an wide-sweeping judgement which would force future judgements in all cases against the patient. They passed a judgement which was quite specific to this dispute and these circumstances. Did they establish precedent? Sure. All cases establish precedent. But the judgement was very specific to this case. This was by no means a blank check for people who want to remove feeding tubes in this country.
The last time I checked, the Congress represents The People of this country and all they were doing were passing a law so that the courts could continue to review the case, not to legislate an outcome.
The courts had reviewed it. 20+ times. The issue had been clearly, thoroughly investigated. The Shindlers were acting out of desperation with no legal argument and that's sad, but it should be abundantly clear to anyone that after a single case comes before the courts 20+ tims and every single decision has the same outcome -- and the decisions made by (at least) two State Supreme Courts that this particular case presented no new evidence and nothing which would give the possibility of a new outcome -- that the situation had been thoroughly investigated, reviewed and decided on. You make it sound as if the Schindler's had a legal case. They did not. They had nothing new that 20+ other courts hadn't previously decided on.
To that end: Congress wasn't acting to make sure the full evidence was presented and Terri Shiavo's parents had their day in court!! They'd had their day in court!! They'd had years of opportunity in multiple courts to plead their case and never, ever got a judgement in their favor. Why is that?
Killing someone is not a private matter no matter how poor or even non-existent that person's quality of life is.
Not true. Absolutely not true. According to my mother, who has worked with Hospice patients for over a decade and knows NYS and federal Hospice regulations backwards and forwards, people check themselves into Hospice care all the time and they and their families regulate their medications that can and do hasten death. People (and their guardians when the patient is unable to make their wishes known) routinely sign DNRs which allow a hospital to take no measures to prolong life. This is exactly what happened with Terri Shiavo, and it's no more the business of our government that it is done in that case than in any other hospice case in this country. There are multiple precedents which show that both NYS and the federal government consider such situations private matters and do not generally interfere unless a clear dispute is raised before the courts. In most cases, the legal guardian's rights are upheld except under extraordinary circumstances.
I assume that this torturous process occurred specifically becuase by all definitions Terri Schiavo was alive.
Her body was alive, her brain was not. This was shown in multiple scans of higher brain functions conducted over several years. Her autonomic brain functions, blinking, heartbeat and breathing functioned. But she was not consciously, sentiently aware of her surroundings. She had lost the ability to take in nourishment. So, no, not by all definitions.
This tortuous process occured because the Shindlers felt as strongly as Michael Shiavo that they knew what their daughter would have wanted, and felt that Mr. Shiavo was not acting in her best interests. After so many judgements against them upholding his rights as legal guardian, they simply lost the dispute.
Although it's become a cliche, I too prefer to live in a society that errs on the side of life, especially when someone (especially the parents) are willing to foot the bill and take care of that life.
So you're pro-life and against a woman's right to choose then? This is the logical conclusion I draw from the above statement.
Of course, your wishes for how you personally would want to be treated should be respected.
So should mine and any other adult's.
First I want to say that I am honestly not familair with the various court cases but assume that most were argued on individual points of law and were not multiple rejections of the same presentation.
You can throw around the "r" word (religion) as much as you want, but religion is about morals and even atheists have morals. While I can understand your legal arguments for removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, I don't understand your moral argument. To me all laws are based on some kind of moral judgement. Our country's founding documents outline the morals on which our law is based, morals given to us by "the Creator".
Am I opposed to abortion in principal - yes. Am I opposed to a woman's right to choose? Maybe not, but I wouldn't be marching in the street if they overturned Rowe vs. Wade either. (Exceptions to be made for mother's health, rape, etc.)
Wish this could be better thought out....
Post a Comment