ABC releases biased poll results
Michelle Malkin got a hold of the poll question ABC was using to judge public opinion on the Terry Schialvo case. Regardless how you feel about the cased, this is shameful. Thanks to Carl for alerting me to this.
Michelle Malkin got a hold of the poll question ABC was using to judge public opinion on the Terry Schialvo case. Regardless how you feel about the cased, this is shameful. Thanks to Carl for alerting me to this.
13 comments:
Agreed, ABC almost pulls a CBS with this one. Surprising too, given ABC's tendency to be in lock-step with the Administration.
That being said, as a Libertarian -- what do you think about the level of Federal involvement in this case?
It's a damn difficult case to take a side on. Her husband claims she's a complete vegetable and that he's acting on her expressed wishes...OTOH, he's got two kids with a woman he's lived with for years so an argument could be that her parents are less conflicted in making a decision on her welfare.
If she had a written living will, this wouuld be a slam-dunk issue and everyone could go home.
But she didn't. And, her parents claim she has actually spoken a few words over the years and is emotionally responsive.
I DO NOT like the idea of slowly dehydrating her and starving her to death. That's barbaric.
I'd like to see her feeding restored and have a court-appointed battery of doctors to evaluate her. Let them come up with a consensus on her cognitive abilities.
If there is no hope for recovery and she's completely mentally gone, then her husband's wishes should be observed but they should do a morphine drip or something else instead of this slow starvation.
If there is a ..ummm.. spark of life in her then there is no way they should allow her to die.
My personal feeling in these cases is that if you're going to judge without strict written proof of intent on the part of the incapacitated, it's better to rule on the side of continued life because the alternative is irreversable.
This is the same way Libertarians feel about the death penalty - because it's the ultimate surrender of liberty and it's irreversible.
...and I didn't answer your question (lol). I'm sort of on the fence on Federal involvement. In one sense, it is Congress' job to enact law to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. OTOH, local standards may differ - possible making this a states rights issue. I do think this hysteria last weekend was ridiculous.
>> it is Congress' job to enact law to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Federal involvement based on this reasoning becomes a slippery slope. Smoking, drinking and involvement in extreme sports has been proven to be detrimental to one's health -- so shouldn't Congress step in and outlaw smoking, drinking hard liquor and mountain climbing? ;)
"have a court-appointed battery of doctors to evaluate her"
Ummm.... been there, done that.
Also, as noted at Mandate, My Ass:
"Never mind that he has refused not only divorces, but $10 million ($9.25 million more than the settlement amount) to walk away from his wife, because he firmly believes he is trying to do her will."
No.
Different principles involved. Shiavo has no way of making her wishes known insofar as her personal choice. Congress can (and should) argue protective measures for folks who are incapable of making choices.
Smoking, extreme sports, et al and personal choices. Congress has little or no right to abrogate the wishes of the individual (although they do it anyway) as long as the public welfare is not jeopardized.
This is why it's Constitutional to bad smoking from office buildings, but if they tried to extend that to private residences, it'd probably get nuked by SCOTUS.
>> Congress can (and should) argue protective measures for folks who are incapable of making choices.
This is the core of the case, and the only real reason Rove has everyone involved. It's a loss-leader to Abortion rights.
If these folks really cared about the rights of those incapable of making choices, torture wouldn't be the symantics game it has become.
I know, I know -- unrelated and off topic. But the moral high ground isn't a buffet. You either respect all human life or not.
Arrgghh....
If you starve yourself and fade away, as my grandmother and great-great-grandmother did, that's one thing. But for someone else to subject you to that is quite another thing.
So, if withholding feeding is so fucking natural, why not do it to folks with advanced Alzheimers?
And, AFAIK, she has not been evaluated recently.
I'm not saying don't pull the plug, just make sure that all the ducks are lined up first and then do something a little bit less painful than allow someone to die of thirst and starvation. Would you do that to an injured pet that had no way of knowing what was happening to it? Why is a human life valued less?
Did I point to her brain scan here?
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
"Six of the nine justices found that no legal disctinction could be made between artificially delivered fluids and nutrition and other medical interventions, such as ventillator support; none of the other three justices found a constitutionally relevant distinction."
In other words, not a biased poll.
Ahhhh, now we see why ABC is in the crosshairs:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937
March 21, 2005 — The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.
This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News ...
...
This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
...
Friggin cretinous Congressional slime molds. I am sick to death of both parties politicizing everything and spinning everything.
There's an article today on TNR.com describing how the GOP is blowing it. I agree.
Post a Comment