Troubling Polls

FROM THE PRESIDENT
By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

TROUBLING POLLS

The tragic death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo reminds pro-lifers of the work confronting us on the issue of euthanasia. That is at least what most opinion polls tell us. One can object that many polls were improperly or misleadingly phrased and that, therefore, one cannot reach the above conclusion. But we need to be realistic in assessing the situation. To this end I invite you to join me in a sober analysis of the polls.

* Although there was conflicting medical testimony, several polls described Terri as being in "a persistent vegetative state" (e.g., CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 3/18/2005, 3/22/2005, 4/1-2/2005; Time, 3/22-24/2005; CBS News, 3/21-22/2005; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/1-2/2005).

* Some polls falsely described Terri as being on "life support" (e.g., ABC News, 3/10-13/2005, 3/20/2005; CBS News, 3/21-22/2005) or in a "coma-like state," contrary to the widely disseminated video images (Time, 3/22-24/2005; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/1-2/2005).

* Poll respondents were also asked to speculate as to whether reinserting Terri's feeding tube would eventually "have improved" Terri's condition or have led to "significant improvement in her brain activity" (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/29-30/2005; CNN/ USA Today/Gallup, 3/22/2005). Most polls and the media made the unsubstantiated "diagnosis" that Terri is "in a persistent vegetative state," and then the polls asked the respondents (with an equal lack of credentials) to make their own diagnosis. Not surprisingly, the majority (60% and 54%) said that Terri's condition could not have improved.

* In the polls mentioned above, majorities supported the removal of the feeding tube (ranging from 52% to 63%) or opposed its reinsertion (66%--CBS News, 3/21-22/2005). The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 3/29-30/2005 did not use the common (and erroneous preamble) that Terri Schindler-Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state." Interestingly, in that poll only a plurality of 42% agreed "with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube," 38% disagreed, and 20% were unsure.

These polls are somewhat at odds with the results of the Zogby poll (March 30 April 2, 2005). The Zogby poll question did not mention Terri Schindler- Schiavo's name, but described situations that were equivalent to her case. Here are the results for two questions:

* In the case of "a disabled person [who] is not terminally ill, not in a coma, not being kept alive by life support, and [has left] no written directive," 80.3% say that such a person should not be denied food and water. This is very encouraging, but note that the question does not mention feeding tubes which some people, conditioned by the media, may falsely regard as "life support." And one can only speculate what the result would have been if the disability had been identified as "brain damage."

* In the case of an incapacitated person without written treatment directives, only a plurality of 44.2% says that the "law should presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube." Disturbingly, 23.7% say that the law should presume that the person wants to die and 32.1% are "not sure."

Pro-lifers who think that the other polls can be dismissed because of a pro-euthanasia bias need to absorb and understand this polling result to the fullest extent: A majority of 55.8% either thinks that the law should presume that a person on a feeding tube and without written health care directives wants to die (23.7%) or is "not sure" what the law should presume (32.1%). Look at it in another way: The law presumes a person, accused of a crime, to be innocent until proven guilty. Only 44.2% would want the law to make an equivalent presumption for the right to life of an innocent disabled person. And should a person be convicted of a heinous crime, the Eighth Amendment protects that criminal from "cruel and unusual punishment"--such as death by starvation.

The public's moral confusion on the euthanasia issue is also reflected in other polling results.

* A Gallup poll question that did not mention Terri's name (10/24-26/2003) found 80% approval for a spouse being "allowed by law to make a final decision to end the patient's life by some painless means" if the "patient is in a persistent vegetative state caused by irreversible brain damage." One can, of course, contend that this phrasing does not strictly conform to Terri's situation, but the public's preference for spouse-initiated euthanasia is disturbingly evident.

* A Harris poll (4/5-10/2005) about the handling of the Schiavo case had 55% giving approval to Terri's husband and 53% giving approval to her parents--even though they took exactly opposite positions about maintaining her life.

* A Gallup poll (3/18-20/2005), asking people about having a child or spouse in Terri's condition, had 56% and 61% opting for removal of feeding tubes, respectively.

* Since 1947, Gallup has asked the question: When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it? In 1947 and 1950, only 37% and 36%, respectively, said yes. But since 1973, there have been clear majorities for the proposition, ranging from 53% to 75%.

It is true that "biased" polls produce questionable and even contradictory results. But the public often holds contradictory positions, and the answers of the respondents reflect not only the biases of the pollster but also dangerous ideas picked up from the general culture.

In reality, the most serious damage done by biased polling is not the production of misleading results (few people remember them) but the wave of news stories they generate. Whatever bias the mainstream media hold is reinforced by polls that play to this bias. The cycling and recycling of polls and news stories, and the journalistic need to follow the herd, produce a cultural view that slowly makes the unthinkable acceptable. Thus, Terri Schindler-Schiavo, an innocent but disabled person, was starved to death over 13 days. "The law was followed."

You and I have an enormous amount of work to do.