Monday, April 04, 2005

Zogby Comes Late

I haven't been saying much about the Schiavo case because there has already been a blizzard of disscussion, intelligent and not, on the issue and I didn't feel like adding to the storm. However, I just have to comment shortly on the new Zogby poll that's been released (post-mortum). Apparently, if you ask less biased questions, a majority of Americans did fall on the side of supporting Schiavo's right to live. The story is availible here:

Apparently the media thinks it can tell America how it feels about things, again. It would have been nice if a majority of the country knew that a majority of the country agreed with them. That may have made the difference in saving Terri's life. But by releasing polls that made it seem no one supported keeping Terri alive, major media (with it's agenda) managed to weaken the support for Terri, contributing to her death. It's like the Nov 2004 early exit polls all over again. If you can tell everyone they are losing, maybe it will really happen.

The credibility of the major media has reached a new low. If you had to chose between an alcoholic bum who promised not to spend your donation on liquor or CNN's latest poll, you would be better off believing the bum.


Blogger courtney said...

That's it-I'm making a living will right now so that CNN and ABC polls don't determine when I die. One very good point you made-more people did agree with the fact that we should save Terri's life. Despite what the polls said, I knew this b/c you didn't see any protesters with signs saying "Pull the Tube." It's funny, everyone was saying that liberals wanted her to die, but like I said, they ran from the microphones b/c even they were too ashamed to admit it. Once again, those who stand up for what is right and just get pushed to the side.

7:22 PM  
Blogger GeorgeMikey said...

I think that it's very easy to fall into the 'right to life' camp and forgetting the 'right to die' issue, i.e. the quality of life achieveable by a person, baby, foetus et al. I can't believe that I'm agreeing with GW, but as he rightly stated 'when in doubt, the right to live must prevail'.

12:58 AM  
Blogger fm_illuminatus said...

I agree george. Actually, I think if terri had clearly stated that as her wish, most people would be fine with her feeding tubes removed (and either way it would have been none of their business). But, what made the case so controversial is that Terri's wishes were not definatively known. Of course, Michael said she wanted to die, and her parents said she wanted to live, both with obvious motives (Michael wanted the rest of the settlement money, the parents didn't want to give up hope for a miraculous recovery). Therefore, the only fair thing to do would have been to give her the benefit of the doubt, and keep her alive, at the very least until everything was sorted out. The original poll questions "Do people have the right to die if they are in the state terri is (was) in?" (or something to that effect) didn't even address the issue at stake. You don't kill somebody right in the middle of the whole mess. It's almost like executing a convict without a single appeal, but worse, because Terri wasn't guilty of anything.

3:09 PM  
Blogger GeorgeMikey said...

The other thing that I think was particularly distasteful was the way in which the 'method' was one of watching her starve to death. I feel fairly involved in this mainly because my grandad actually 'died' six months before he was pronounced dead, his last six months being cancer-ridden, semi conscious, drug filled and excrutiatingly painful for him, our family were not being able to start the grieving process and was in a 'waiting for him to die' limbo, but in those days (1978) no-one was ever given the option of whether the drugs should or could have been withdrawn.

Sorry to fill your comment box with a bit of a downer but this really is a tough one to comment on.

9:07 AM  
Blogger Zelda said...

Good post!

9:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home