
That's the question that Michelle Malkin asks in her most recent column. In particular, she points out the seeming effort by ABC News to engage in push-polling for euthanasia. The poll question asked by ABC is in italics:
As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?
A follow-up question asked:
If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?
The problem is that, contrary to what ABC News told those polled, Terri Schiavo is not on "life support" and has never been on "life support." The loaded phrase evokes images of a comatose patient being artificially sustained by myriad machines and pumps and wires. Terri was on a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not a ventilator. Terri can breathe just fine on her own.
And as many of her medical caretakers and parents have argued, if given proper rehabilitation, Terri could learn to chew and swallow on her own as well. She is disabled, not dead.
But ABC News did not see fit to inform either the poll takers or its viewers of the truth. Instead, it misled them -- and the result was a poll response that produced -- voila! -- "broad public disapproval" for any government intervention to spare Terri from slowly starving to death.
Read the whole thing and pass it around.
Update: Michelle has a post on her blog on the Eleventh Circuit's refusal of the case, and she provides excerpts, with links, to some comments by pundits who are sympathetic to Schiavo.
| Mar. 23, 2005 | 9:12 AM