Oh, That Liberal Conservative Media
Et tu, FoxNews! This story proudly displays a headline reading:
Majority Would Remove Schiavo’s Feeding Tube
It proceeds to report that as many as 61% of Americans think Terri Schiavo should be starved to death per Michael Schiavo’s …. um, I mean, Terri Schiavo’s … wishes, with only 22% believing she should not be. The results of the actual study, however, are a bit less earth-shattering.
Skipping past the fluff and on to the actual poll, we find a poll that might as well have been written by Michael Schiavo’s attorney, George Kevorkian Felos. Take question one:
If a patient has been in what doctors call a “persistent vegetative” or a coma-like state with no higher brain activity for a significant amount of time, who do you think should make the decision whether the patient should be kept alive or not?
- The person’s parents or other family members (31%)
- The person’s spouse (50%)
- The government (2%)
- The person’s doctor (4%)
- Not sure (13%)
Gee, nothing biased about that question, oh no. I’m sure it was only space considerations that kept the most obvious choice - the person himself, hello? - off the list. As to the 6% who thinks the government or some random doctor ought to be allowed to kill a patient over his family’s objections, we can only hope that they make up the same 6% that disenfrachises itself every year by voting for Ralph Nader, Annoyingarianna or some other unelectable idiot du jour. Maybe we’d better disenfranchise them ourselves, just to be on the safe side.
On to question two:
Terri Schiavo has been in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” since 1990. Her eyes sometimes open, but doctors say she has no consciousness. Terri’s husband says his wife would rather die than be kept alive artificially and wants her feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents believe she could still recover and want the feeding tube to remain. If you were Terri’s guardian, what would you do?
[Results: 61% say remove the tube, 22% say keep it, 17% not sure.]
Note the artificially created asymmetries here: Terri’s “husband” says she wants to die, but no mention is made of the fact that any of her real family members - try, all of them? - dispute that contention. Similarly, “doctors say” she has no consciousness, but no mention is made of the doctors who disagree. Nor is there any mention whatsoever of the obvious conflicts of interest that may be coloring her “husband’s” concept of what Terri’s true wishes may or may not have been.
Here’s the third, and final question:
If you were in Terri Schiavo’s place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian:
- Remove the feeding tube? (74%)
- Keep the feeding tube inserted? (16%)
- Not sure (10%)
Which is hardly a surprising result, given the extent to which Questions 1 and 2 have skewed the respondents’ idea of what “place” Terri Schiavo is supposedly in.
Here’s the fourth question, that wasn’t included in the survey, but probably should have been, assuming that Fair and Balanced
November 1st, 2003 at 3:55 am
Polls schmolls. I just saw an article on Drudge that a poll shows most in the EU believe Israel is the world’s biggest threat! What-EHVUH!!!
November 3rd, 2003 at 1:56 pm
Those last few years of marriage, I’ll tell you, I sure wouldn’t have wanted my wife to make that choice for me…
November 4th, 2003 at 7:47 am
I wonder how many in the poll knew that Robert Schindler had his own mother removed from life support after only a week of unconsciousness. Things that make you go “hmmmm”. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html
November 4th, 2003 at 9:18 am
I’m more inclined to put that in the category of “um, what was the point?” This in addition to the fact that the story ran in the Guardian, a “news” paper whose overall credibility ranks slightly below that if the National Enquirer, while still well above that of the Weekly World News.
I am glad I read the article, though. If for no other reason, then just to remind myself why I don’t read the Guardian unless I’m looking for something to fisk. It was very touching to learn that only The Christian Right (TM) is wary about Michael “When is that Bitch Going to Die” Schiavo’s account of his wife’s supposed intent; I guess that means agnostics like me and atheists like Michele are chopped liver. Even more amusing was the part about The Legal Community (TM) - all of it, presumably - supposedly condemning Terri’s Law. I know I don’t condemn it. Neither does this lawyer, that one, or even the mother hen. But it’s nice to know that even if we don’t condemn the law, others who purport to speak for us, do.
November 4th, 2003 at 11:14 am
I guess my point has always been that those on either side of the argument tend to acknowledge only those facts which support their version of What Is Right(tm). Also, I have to be a bit skeptical of Schindler’s motives in fighting Schiavo in court, considering he pulled the plug on his mom almost immediately.
Yes, the Guardian is a pinko rag, but I believe this tidbit. I’ll have a look elsewhere for confirmation.
November 4th, 2003 at 1:53 pm
I don’t doubt the veracity of the statement, but without more details, I see far too many undefined variables. Maybe Robert Schindler’s mother left a living will. Maybe she didn’t, but did tell Robert Schindler to his face that she wanted to die. (Yes, I know Terri Schiavo supposedly did, too, but not to Robert Schindler.) Maybe the mother was suffering horribly, while there is no evidence Terri was. Even the date is missing. Did it precede Terri’s condition? If not, where was Terri on the issue? For pulling the plug? Against? Etc.
On the flip side, I’m not sure what the ulterior motive would be for the Schindlers (all of them, not just Robert) to fight to keep Terri alive. It’s not as though they are going to inherit anything. At the very worst, I could envision the possiblity that Robert Schindler is trying a little too hard to keep his daughter alive now, and is acting out of guilt over the possibility that he didn’t try enough to keep his mother alive then.
November 6th, 2003 at 8:35 am
I was once in Michael Schiavo’s shoes, and the patient was my father, who I loved more than anyone in the world. Luckily for me, he took matters in his own hands(?) and checked out on his own, after a couple months in a “persistent vegetative state.” My decision was made for me, so I can’t criticize the Schiavo family, except to say that they have some balls to make Michael Schiavo pay for Terri’s care. If they want to care for her so much, why don’t they sit at her bedside, smell the open sores and shit, and pay the bills. But no. They demand that hubby do and pay everything. Years later, he wants his life back. Maybe he gets to keep some of her money. But I can’t imagine anyone who wants to keep someone in that state for years, and then years more. If we must question the husband’s motives, I wonder what are the motives of the family? Have they been canonized yet? Not affected by any human feelings, like maybe envy, greed, control problems, or hatred? Just asking. Nobody else has.
November 6th, 2003 at 8:50 am
By the way, if it was me on that bed, wearing a diaper, being fed by a tube, higher brain functions dead, I can only pray that someone has what it takes to pull the plug on me… even if I am in a totally cool, nirvana-like state.
November 6th, 2003 at 8:55 am
Michael, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Schindlers (the Schiavos are irrelevant to this controversy) are asking Michael Schiavo to pay for anything, but they’re not. All they’re asking is that he get out of the way and let them care for their daughter.
So you personally would rather die than live in Terri’s condition. Fine, that’s your choice to make, for you. It’s not your choice, mine or even Michael “When Is That Bitch Going to Die?” Schiavo’s to make for anyone else.