Monday, April 4, 2005
Zogby: Americans Wanted Terri to Live

By a significant plurality, Americans did not agree with the decision by state and federal courts last week that Terri Schiavo should be starved to death, a new Zogby poll has found. According to a report on the survey by Life News, Zogby pollsters asked: If a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, should "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube?"

Forty-three percent of those surveyed said yes, with just 30 percent saying the feeding tube should be removed.

Zogby then asked: "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?"

A staggering 79 percent said the patient should not be denied food and water. Just 9 percent said yes.

Zogby followed up with a question about Congress' decision to intervene in the Schiavo case:

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place?"

Forty-two percent said officials should order that the tube remain in place, with just 18 percent disagreeing.

When told that Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael, "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her," 56 percent of Americans said guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents.

Just 37 percent disagreed.

Link: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/4/134940.shtml

Like we didn't already know the phony ABC opinion poll was BSing us.

::)

But the thing is, she was BRAIN DEAD. Nothing came up on the EKGs.

Get over it, folks.

She wasn't brain dead, she was brain damaged-big difference.
but she is gone now,, Let her rest in peace.

She wasn't brain dead, she was brain damaged-big difference.
but she is gone now,, Let her rest in peace.


No, you are wrong. She was brain dead. There was NO cerebral activity, only stem activity.

No, you are wrong. She was brain dead. There was NO cerebral activity, only stem activity.


The brain controlls everything in your body, a person who is brain dead wouldnt be able to do anything, not even open their eyes, which by the way she could do.

The brain controlls everything in your body, a person who is brain dead wouldnt be able to do anything, not even open their eyes, which by the way she could do.


Yeah, but there was no cerebral activity. Your brain stem only controls your basical and involuntary physical functions and reactions. But no cerebral activity=no concious mind. And if there is no concious mind, its just a pile of meat.

Everyone look at this CT scan image of Terri's brain, on the right is Terri's brain and on the left is a normal brain. Now looking at Terri's brain, you notice that there is a large hole that takes up more than half of her brain in the center, now we all know that a large hollow area in the center of the brain is not normal, you can also see that most of the outer parts are rotted away as well, more of less leaving just a "skeleton" of her brain. The entire central area of her brain is hollow and filled with fluids. Not much left from the surrounding areas of her brain either. By now 80% or so of her brain was gone and nothing but fluids. The only real functing area of her brain was the brain stem, which controls involuntary reflexes, which is why she was able to be kept alive for so long. Now we all know that you cannot regenerate brain tissue, so Terri was pretty much hopeless. Now I found this image on Wikipedia, this is the caption of the image "According to a March 30, 2005 article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, this image was distributed to the public by Neurologist Ronald Cranford and Michael Schiavo."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Schiavo_catscan.jpg

At some point we, as a culture must come to terms with the fact of death, and the issues of quality of life, as opposed to life for the sake of life.  George Bush expressed that when as governor of Texas he signed a bill giving hospitals the right to turn off life supports, and remove feeding tubes, if they thought all indications
pointed to the person not recovering. I do think that if there isn't a living will, and there is someone who is
willing to become caretaker of a person, then they should have that right.  I think Michael Schaivo should
have turned over the care of Terry to her parents.  I also believe that with counseling from hospice workers
the parents would have soon come to the conclusion that perhaps it was time to let go.  I think they became much more immersed in the fight with Michael to see clearly.  What did they think would happen to her after they, and her siblings were gone? What would have happened was the state would have stepped in and
possibly used her as a guinea pig, then stop the feeding.  All the Schindlers did was delay the inevitable.
None of it to Terrys advantage

I agree, except for the parent's accepting her prognosis.  I don't think ANY amount of counseling would have made them accept it. :-\\


I tend to agree, but I do think they became so involved with their fight with Michael that they couldn't
see straight.  I can see how that could happen.  I don't know what I would do if I were in there position
hopefully none of us have to find out.knocking on wood

I WAS in a similar position.  When my grandfather was dying of throat cancer, basically the only thing keeping him alive was a feeding tube inserted into his stomach.  Like I said on another thread, he had filled out a living will, but we hadn't "finalized" it.  Luckily, his doctor was great and when he (my g'pa) pulled the tube out, he took that to mean that he didn't want it anymore and honored our request to not replace it.  He was then put on morphine and passed about a week later...


:\'(

odd...

The Republicans cried that Zogby was the most inaccurate polling firm in the history of man when it was predicting a loss for Bush in 2004.  Yet here they are preaching about their findings here, and ignoring Gallup poll results showing a 10% drop in approval for Bush, and an ABC poll that shows the exact opposite numbers as this poll.


"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.

here's the thing.  SHE WAS BRAIN DEAD.  NO BRAIN ACTIVITY.  Does the question mention that?  Nope.  Fairer question, or more leading question? 

How about mentioning in the lead up to that question, that her doctors, the ones that ACTUALLY examined her (ie. didn't see her on TV) stated there was ZERO chance of recovery.  Nope, no mention there of that either.  Gee, I wonder why the response is so different.

Terri who? 

Seriously, after 14 years of vegitation...  Do we have to rehearse this again?  She is dead, let her go.