This Fox News poll shows that the vast majority of Amreicans say that were they in Terri Schiavo's shoes, they'd want to be starved to death.
My first thought was that this is massively depressing, that people have such a powerful prejudice against the disabled that they'd rather be starved to death than face life with a disability.
But, on the positive side, it could be mere ignorance. It's possible that if people knew how painful it was to die by having your feeding tube removed, they'd not want that for themselves or others. And if they could be taught that folks with disabilities could still have meaningful lives, they'd come around.
But at the moment, I just find it massively demoralizing.
It's particularly demoralizing in light of the first question listed, which asks who should decide if a disabled person lives or dies. The idea that disabled people have an inherent right to not be killed isn't even an option.
I sure hope it's just ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI notice question 35 factually states "Terri's husband says" but does not emphasize the fact that she left no written documentation of this alleged 'wish.' How might people react if that was emphasized?
I think question 36 is not worded well. We do not have a right to die. Others disagree of course. But the question leaves out the fact that Terri's family and their attorneys have witnessed reactions, movements, and other proof that Terri is not simply in a "persistent vegitative state." Perhaps the results would be different if that was emphasized.
I fail to understand why the media always claims she is in a "persistent vegitative state." This is taking the CLAIM of the side who wants her to die. This is in dispute. Her family states that she is NOT in a "persistent vegitative state." Why not simply say "whose condition and consciousness is in dispute" or something (if they must be totally neutral)?
I can't understand why what's too cruel to do to a dog or a hamster is okay to do to Terri.
ReplyDelete