Released: April 06, 2005
80%: Non-Terminal Patients Should Not be Denied Food, Water; Three-to-One: Feeding Tube Should Stay in Place When Wishes Unknown; Americans Divided on Intervention by Elected Officials, Christian Defense Coalition / Zogby Poll of Likely Voters Reveals
Yes, thanks to the folks at the Christian Defense Coalition that incredibly biased ABC Schiavo poll (which, you will recall, confused respondants by referring to "life support" as "life support") has received its comeuppance; ask a completely neutral, non-biased question and you'll wonder where the controversy went:
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.
Okay, I was educated in the last century, and I freely admit that the intricacies of faith-based reality elude me at times. But how is misrepresenting two details of the Schiavo case in four clauses "fairer", to use Zogby's term? Artificial hydration and nutrition are life support under Florida law, which obviously doesn't require written instructions, either. So I suppose if I were willing to credit this rather breathtaking piece of public prostitution, I'd conclude that a whopping 79% don't like Florida's law.
Note I said if.
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.
As in Terri's case? Seeing as how two separate courts, plus appeals, found Terri had expressed a preference, I'm wondering what you call this if not biased? Made-up shit, perhaps? Well, let's not stop now:
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.
In a non-scientific poll of persons in my office right this minute, 100% knew that it was the court which was Terri's guardian, not Michael. The same percentage wondered how that majority of likely voters plans to write their little moral code into the law. What percentage thought having one child was acceptable, but two was over the line? How many believe Michael should have undergone chemical castration or entered a monastery? Or just satisfied his beastial urges on his lawfully wedded but unfortunately persistantly vegetative wife?
How many of you folks, assuming you are real, which I frankly don't, have the slightest awareness of what Michael Schiavo did for his wife after her hospitalization? In thirteen years the woman never had a bedsore. If Michael Schiavo is morally suspect let's have Congress dissolve the marriages of anyone who has treated his spouse with less concern and see who's left standing.
What does it cost to get Zogby to perform these tricks in public? They didn't just conduct the poll so those Christian Defenders could wave it under legislators' noses; they feature this trash on their website. What's it worth to have to hire somebody to shave you because you can't look at yourself in the mirror anymore?