Schiavo Case Ignites Euthanasia Debate In U.S (poll: TNS / WP / ABC)

[struggle4progress]

(Angus Reid Consultants - CPOD Global Scan) – Many Americans believe a husband or wife should decide whether a person who suffered brain damage should be kept on life support, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 65 per cent of respondents believe the spouse should have final say on matter, while 25 per cent think the patient’s parents should step in. <snip>

In cases like this, who do you think should have final say, the parents or the spouse?

The parents 25%
The spouse 65%
Other 2%
Neither 2%
No opinion 6%

If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?

Yes 8%
No 87%
No opinion 4%

Source: TNS / Washington Post / ABC News
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,001 American adults, conducted from Mar. 10 to Mar. 13, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6387

[NMDemDist2]

1. 87% wouldn't want to be that way

and the 65% for the spouse...... what if the couple was gay? then the parent or sibling swoops in and the partner gets kicked out

another reason to legalize gay marriage

[mitchtv]

7. it happens all the time

everyone I know has some kind of horror story

[NMDemDist2]

18. i had gay friends who that happened to, it's a big measure of why

i support gay marriage

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. But I fail to see how this is euthanasia since she is kept alive

by artificial means

[Guaranteed]

32. It's not. It's a misnomer. nt

[Mr.Green93]

3. A waste of resources

keeping her alive wasted finite resources that could have been used for someone who could recover.

[pop goes the weasel]

8. what is your definition of "recovered"?

I hope you realize that there are many people who are conscious yet dependent on feeding tubes. And there are many who are comatose who use feeding tubes, and may or may not recover. If they do recover, they will continue to have disability. So, what is your standard of recovery? Consciousness? Intellectual ability? Physical mobility?

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is an issue that has distanced a lot of people with disabilities from DU. You'd be surprised at how often and how strongly even fairly healthy disabled people are urged to commit suicide (my disabled daughter was just telling me last night that she had again been told by someone that "If I had to live with that, I'd kill myself"), and how difficult it is to get routine medical care for life-threatening but treatable illnesses if you have a pre-existing disability. Did you know that if you already have a disability, that your chances of being able to recover costs in a lawsuit actually go down? (It's called the eggshell skull rule.)

So, despite all the rightwingers working the Schiavo case for their own reasons, many people with disabilities are very disturbed by the readiness evinced by so many liberals to decide whether we live or die based solely on whether we will "recover" or whether an able-bodied person would want "to live like that." It's very troubling.

[sonicx]

9. No, most just want to respect Terri's wishes...

HER wish was not to live in her current state. Most people have repeated that several times.

It's a secondary issue, but it is clear that Terri won't recover.

[pop goes the weasel]

10. her wishes aren't known

No witnesses, no other people who can testify that she would want to be killed or kept alive, no document.

[sonicx]

11. Actually, there were other witnesses.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?

No, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:


We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

[pop goes the weasel]

12. and again with "recover"

undefined

What would you say recovery would consist of?

What if her other functioning remained the same but she could swallow so that the feeding tube was not part of this argument?

[sonicx]

13. like i said, it's secondary, but...

she can't swallow and never will again.

[pop goes the weasel]

16. That's your definition?

If she could swallow? So, all other things remaining the same, if she were to suddenly be able to swallow, then your stance would change?

I realize this is totally hypothetical, but bear with me. Would your opinion change if she could suddenly swallow? And why?

[sonicx]

17. no, because it's a secondary issue...

The primary issue is can the husband make the medical decisions? I think he can.

As for recovery, regaining the ability to swallow would not be recovery. She still can't think, feel, or respond to stimuli.

[pop goes the weasel]

21. I'm not that interested in the legal technicality

I agree that the spouse, by law, has the right to make the decision. I'm more interested in the ethical question raised as to whether a spouse should have the right to deny a wife/husband food and water, and under what circumstances.

You mention thinking, feeling, and responding to stimuli--I take it that some level of such functioning would be necessary for you to believe continued sustenance should be offered. I would think that swallowing would be a sign of reaction to stimuli, so obviously, you would expect more than that. I'm curious as to what.

I appreciate your actually discussing this topic. The general response here whenever any of us from the Disability Issues ghetto disagree with euthanasia is an immediate put-down and insult as freepers. With the current service cuts being pushed by Republicans and the enthusiastic support for euthanasia shown by so many Dems, it sometimes seems like the http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html">T-4 chambers are just around the corner.

[sonicx]

26. It depends on the situation and what doctors say about the condition...

and it would depend on what agreement the spouses had before a situation happened. Too many variables.

[pop goes the weasel]

30. "Too many variables"

I agree with that. That's why this particular case is so controversial.

[mondo joe]

33. No, that's not why. The law and the science have been extremely

consistent.

Terri's parents and the no-choice people have engaged a campaign of disinformation. THAT is why it is controversial.

[SW FL Dem]

22. I would define recovery as having a functioning cerebral cortex

something the medical experts agree that Terri Schiavo will never attain.

[pop goes the weasel]

25. Thanks

Do you think it would be a good idea to write into law that an assessment on the new http://www.medschool.northwestern.edu/newsworthy/2005J-March/brain_injury.html">Disorders of Consciousness Scale for a functioning cerebral cortex should be done before all assistance is withdrawn from possibly brain-dead patients?

[SW FL Dem]

27. I trust doctors before politicians.

Your link doesn't work. but my gut tells me that I won't agree with what is posted there.

[pop goes the weasel]

29. Don't know why the link didn't work

And you shouldn't be trusting your gut on this. I am getting a clear picture that you are jumping to conclusions about me just because I disagree with you.

Let's see if the link works this way:
http://www.medschool.northwestern.edu/newsworthy/2005J-March/brain_injury.html

[SW FL Dem]

35. How can you reach your conclusions?

You don't know me, Why shouldn't I trust my gut? Do you know something I don't? My position on this issue has been clear for years. I have read the court documents. I believe the independent judges who have reviewed the evidence. Who are you to be telling a complete stranger who to trust. Have you read the documents, or do you rely on the parent's story and the "liberal" (?) media.

[pop goes the weasel]

36. and you don't know me

My position has also been clear for years. I have read the court documents. I will even agree that the court decisions are in keeping with the law as it stands. I am not certain that the law should remain as it is and want to raise questions about it. I want to hear people's ethical arguments, not insults aimed at what they wrongly assume to be my political stance.

Did you try looking at the link again? Do you think it would be good to mandate a specific test such as the therein described, at least in contested cases such as the Schiavo one?

[mitchtv]

14. troubling is you thinking there is a political side to this

It is not liberal or conservative to not want to be in a vegetative state. It is Human.The republicans have become the American Taliban, inserting themselves into the most intimate family matters, and grandstanding, too.That is the political aspect, and along with their intent to have the FCC control cable and satellite, we are heading for Trouble.

[pop goes the weasel]

19. me thinking there is a political side to this?

Hello, I'm not the one screaming that only rabid right wingers are concerned about this. I pointed out that there are other people, people who are not necessarily right wing or anti-abortion even, who are troubled by the outcome of the Schiavo case. The post I was responding to initially made a Malthusian argument that Schiavo should be killed so she won't be a drain on resources. Doesn't that trouble you in the least? If that is the standard for who is to have their food yanked, then we are all in trouble.

[mitchtv]

20. Alowing to die is not killing

it is not food, it is nutrition, she does not eat. I think her husband should be trusted to determine her wishes. Letting someone die is not killing them.What would these troubled people do? Feed all brain dead patients indefinitely. Turn their lives over to their church?. Ask Bill Frist? This thing has gone on too long. What is the solution?

[pop goes the weasel]

23. No one lives forever

She'd die, eventually, just like you will. And there are plenty of people who are not brain-damaged in the least who use feeding tubes. If Bush cuts off their Medicaid so they can't get their "nutrition," whose side will you be on?

"Allowing to die is not killing." Wow. So, why not cut the social safety net completely then? Why bother to send the Coast Guard to rescue ships in distress? You know, there are regular reports of parents who let a child starve to death. And people on this list get rightly pissed off about it. But following your logic, maybe that's wrong. After all, all these parents did was fail to feed their child, who then died as a natural consequence. So, yes, allowing to die can be killing. This isn't as easy an issue as you might want it to be.

[sonicx]

24. "Allowing to die is not killing" meant if the PERSON wants to die...

while in a certain state, they should be allowed to. This case is not about talking a life against a person's wants. Your other examples have nothing to do with this case. Your examples are talking about murder.

mitchtv wrote:

"I think her husband should be trusted to determine her wishes."

[pop goes the weasel]

28. then do we

intervene in cases of suicide? Seriously, what is the ethical thing to do in such a case?

[sonicx]

31. heh, not sure if I should answer since I have an unpopular opinion about

that issue. One might say that mental illness is more treatable and easier to recover from (in ways, i guess. but not always).

[pop goes the weasel]

34. ah, I was thinking that may be the case

I have a friend who is prone to suicidal ideation. For that matter, I am too. We have different stances on it though. I always want to be talked out of it, and he always wants to be encouraged to do it. Well, maybe he's changed his mind now that he actually convinced a girl to marry him. I should ask him.

Anyways, we have had long talks over whether it is ethical to save someone who tried to commit suicide. I find it helpful to discuss these things, and have been very frustrated with the accusatory refusal of DUers to discuss the ethical issues involved in the Schiavo case. There are a host of variables, as said above. One thing that folks here seem to take as an assumption is that individual autonomy always trumps community or family, which is too libertarian a position for me. I expect that my parents will always have a vested interest in my welfare and my daughter expects that I will always have one in hers, and that our mutual obligations extend through all our kin. Spouses can come and go, but your blood kin you are stuck with. :) So, again, that's a different perspective which values different variables perhaps than the perspective that stresses individual autonomy.

[wickywom]

4. I think people are empathizing more with

her parents and that is the emotional core of this case .. it's one thing to say I wouldn't want this for myself, but quite another to ask parents to watch thier child die after caring for her for so many years and believing they see life in her.

It is disgusting how the Repubs have declared sides as usual, ABC mentioned some talking points from a memo and I hope it comes back to bite them.

What I don't understand -why is the life expectancy of a quadriplegic so much shorter than someone with her injury?

[mitchtv]

15. bedsores killed Chris Reeve

complications of.

[illflem]

5. Many have said that the only reason the husband

wants Teri put down is so he can collect on her life insurance, that's one of the main reasons this has drug on for so long.
That theory was put to rest last week when someone offer $1M to the husband to keep her alive and he refused.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. This poll, even if off by a bit, is very clear -- WHY...

is our entire country, and our free press, dancing to the tune of a political faction of religious zealots, led by the likes of Tom DeLay???