Tonight Only: Poll vs. Poll
“If at first you don’t like public opinion… poll, poll again.”
Frustrated by polls indicating that a majority of Americans think Michael Schiavo was within his rights to remove his brain dead wife’s feeding tube, pollster Zogby has responded with a poll of their own, intending to fight the alleged bias of the earlier polls. Of course, the best weapon against bias is… more bias.
“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.
Life News: Zogby Poll
You may disagree with Florida law, but according to the law, a feeding tube is just as much a life sustaining procedure as a ventilator. Having food forcibly pumped into your stomach is considered artificial support of a vital function. Also, the question seems to ask for what should be done in every case. “should or should they not be denied food and water” would be better phrased as “should their guardian be permitted to remove a feeding tube.” No one is going to say that they think feeding tubes should always be removed. And what of the sworn testimony by multiple people that Terri Schiavo had expressed that she wouldn’t want to be kept alive in this state? That doesn’t merit inclusion into the question?
This looks like another case of “here are the facts, and here is our desired poll result… now how do we get from A to B?”
Update: Michelle Malkin reports on skepticism about this poll among conservative bloggers.
Apart from the fact that this isn’t the first time her husband has been suspected of trying to kill her…she wasn’t in a coma, she wasn’t in a vegitative state, and she basically wasn’t on life support. If you want to talk about “according to law”…you should have mentioned that the court system in this country operates illegally.
As we saw in this case, it is sometimes nessisary to change the law.
The media and polsters have been consistently on the wrong side of this, so it’s nice to see someone trying to do a decent job of polling according to the facts. Haveing said that, Zogby isn’t polling specifically to the Shiavo case, though they are obviously related. It seems to me that polsters always overpoll, and you can find the statistics on almost anything (including various hypothetical situations) surrounding an issue.
Even if she was brain dead and in a coma and on full life support, I see no problem wanting to know hypothetical cases. And in this case, those are the questions they should have been asking from the beginning.
She was ruled to be in a persistent vegetative state. Nothing has been brought up that even remotely questions that she had no cerebral function. I don’t deny that some court decisions contradict the law, but this wasn’t one of them. Michael Schiavo attempted many types of therapy, hoping that there was a chance for his wife. She didn’t respond to any of it. According to Schiavo and two others, Terri stated that she wouldn’t want to be kept alive in that condition. It is unfortunate that her parents disagreed, but the court has to rule in favor of the guardian.
Mark, If a feeding tube is considered life support, what else is? An intravenous tube? In common medical parlance, life support means a ventilator, dialysis machine or an intra aortic balloon pump. Do you know the statute that puts a feeding tube into that mix?
Nobel prize nominee and Dr. William Hammesfahr who works extensively with these type of patients and examined her very thoroughly concludes that she is not in a persistent vegetative state.
I’d say that more than “remotely questions” that she had no cerebral function.
Speaking of Florida law, Judge Greer clearly broke the law on several occasions. What I’d really like to know is why the judge didn’t allow an MRI. Seems awful strange to me…
I’d also like to know why every action from Michael Schiavo has been sinister. I don’t have the link on me, but I believe Terri was significantly improving during therapy, but as soon as the money from the malpractice claim was received by Michael (which was awarded to specifically go to her care), he promptly stopped the treatment and used the money that was supposed to go to therapy for his own selfish reasons.
One of the most blatant actions was his refusal to let her parents and siblings be with her during her final hours. There was no concern of them doing something to try to save Terri, as she was destined to die soon anyways. How cold-hearted can you get?! His attorney who was instrumental in her death, however, was allowed to see her. Talk about irony…
Dr. William Hammesfahr wasn’t nominated for the Nobel Prize, and his court showing was pathetic. Read more:
You cannot know what is in Michael Schiavo’s heart. He tried rehabilitation. It didn’t work. If you want to argue that it was all about the money, I could bring up that legal action was initiated by Bob Schindler, after Michael Schiavo refused to share his $300,000 settlement (separate from the $1 million set aside for Terri).
It was the Schindlers who turned this into a media circus, so honestly, I don’t blame Schiavo for wanting them to bugger off. Michael Schiavo had far more to gain financially by turning custody of Terri over to the Schindlers… something around $6 million. If he were motivated by selfish reasons, why didn’t he just cash out? You have to consider the possibility that his wife indeed did convey her wishes to him and to the two other people who testified and that he was merely fighting to see her will be carried out.
And here is the legal definition of a life-prolonging procedure:
The deal is this. SHe could swallow. hence they could have fed her by spoon or bottle. She didn’t need the feeding tube. she wasn’t allowed to be fed. Can we kill children this way? Damn that toddler’s going to eat on her own - screw the bottle….. She was never given and MRI or PET Scan. Schiavo came out and said she wanted to die 7 YEARS after the fact. Only Radiologists can testify to the results of brain scans. Yet they were not used to discuss her brain fuction by the couts (except for one of the parents doctors)
You can’t know Michael Schiavo’s heart just like you can’t know Terri’s wishes. Michael’s actions say a lot though. And to say that he wanted her family to bug off is certainly no reason to keep them out of the room.
He was not motivated only by money. There is evidence to suggest that he tried to murder her, so why wouldn’t he a) stop her rehab (why risk her learning to talk again), or even better yet, b) just eliminate her from the picture.
He took what money he could get, but wanted her dead as well. I also don’t blame her family for taking this to the media, who didn’t come down on their side, unfortunatly.
In response to the legal deffinition of life support, that still doesn’t explain why the judge ruled against law allowing her to be fed, which wouldn’t have been “life-support”. Even more astounding is that they wouldn’t let them even give her ice cubes to ease the suffering of starvation. This is also illegal under florida law.
As far as Dr. William Hammesfahr, there is evidence to suggest strongly that he wasn’t nominated, though it seems that if these claims were substantal then several major news channels wouldn’t reffer to him as such. Anyways, the fact remains that he is a nurologist who examined Terri extensively.
There are obviously two sides to this argument. One of the strongest reasons to remove the feeding tube is because from what we know, the only sources we had told us she didn’t want to live on life support. Looking a bit closer though, it is easy to see that this case isn’t nearly as simple as proponents for the removal of the feeding tube make it out to be. She could have survived without life support, and whether she was in a persistent vegitative state was in question as well, so what she supposedly told Michael doesn’t even matter if she isn’t in a pvs. But I’m digressing. This case was a legal mess and more than one law was broken by the judges. What I am trying to say is there are arguments for the removal of the feeding tube, but legalities aren’t one of them. Legally, she should have stayed alive. Morally, it’s up to what you believe about her wishes and Mr. Shiavo, but legally, she should have been kept alive.
A lot of is is a matter of opinion and who you want to believe.
I apologize for the lengthy post.
Perhaps you’re right, Mark, but it would seem as though the majority of American’s disagree with Florida’s definition of what life support is.
I don’t doubt that the Florida courts made a legal decision that was well within their boundaries to make. There was nothing illegal about it. That being said, I believe that most Americans feel that it was a mistake and that the court should have weighed other options which were available rather than choosing death.
Rob, Have you read this?
Would you rather believe the court’s experts, or some quack doctor who cannot substantiate his claims and who toots his own horn until his nose grows through the windshield?
The link you give that states evidence that Judge Greer broke the law is weak. I’ve not seen the court order where Judge Greer allegedly ordered the removal of ordinary food and water. Such an order would be contrary to the law, so even if it wasn’t specified that it was the PEG tube that was to be removed (and it was, in the original court order), that would have to be assumed.
Number two is merely an excuse to delay removal of the tube forever, as there will always be some new test to be done. Absent evidence of cerebral function, what is the point of additional tests when every test to this point has been consistent?
Number 3 is laughably ignorant of the law. Michael Schiavo’s testimony as to his wife’s wishes isn’t “hearsay” nor is the testimony of the other relatives. They heard Terri say these things. The saying of the things is the act, and they witnessed it. Now, had Michael Schiavo then told party X what his wife said, party X would not be able to testify in court, because that would be hearsay.
If Michael Schiavo wanted Terri dead, why did he spend so much time trying to rehabilitate her? He didn’t try to get her PEG tube removed right away… he made good faith efforts to see if there was any chance she might be saved. It was only after these efforts failed that he moved to have her feeding tube removed.
Rob, it comes as no surprise to me that Americans want to disregard the law in order to get the outcome they want. That sort of left thinking has seeped into the right, even if it is with the “well, they do it!” disclaimer.
It’s still a matter of who you want to believe. There is evidence for both sides. I believe the evidence for the argument to remove the feeding tube is extremely weak, but you can think what you want.
The polls also showed a majority of Americans supported of the removal of her feeding tube. The law was disregared in the courts, however, to gain the outcome desired.
I do find it ironic that very little is mentioned about the liberals trying to manipulate the court system to get the outcome they want. The difference in this case, is that the congressional action was legal.
Key word: disabled. Which is not congruent with PVS
[...] reminded of some biased Terri Schiavo polls. If that’s the case, it’s safe to expect that Zogby will soon release their counter poll: “President Bush’s plan for Social Security: d [...]
[...] Tempus Fugit | TxFx.net [...]