Public Rejects Involuntary Denial of Food and Water, Medical Treatment
By Dave Andrusko

The tragic death of Terri Schiavo has been used by proponents of "living wills" to lecture Americans that they ought to put their treatment wishes in writing. National Right to Life believes Americans ought to sign a pro-life living will, NRLC's Will to Live. (See www.nrlc.org.)

But there is a secondary problem that must be remedied: too often medical personnel disregard the wishes of patients or their family when they want food and fluids or medical treatment. Usually this practice of involuntary denial of lifesaving measures is justified in "quality of life" terms.

NRLC's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics had a nationwide poll conducted to see what the public feels about this practice, which is known to very few people. It was conducted April 8-11, 2005, by The Polling Group. The results, based on questions each asked of 500 respondents, with a 4.5% margin of error, are reproduced below.

The questions ask about (1) food and fluids, on the one hand, and life support, on the other hand, when (2) the patient wishes the lifesaving measure or, although the patient's wishes are not known, the patient's family directs those measures.

"A seriously ill patient has indicated that they want food and fluids but the doctor thinks the patient's quality of life is too low to merit food and fluids. Which of the following best describes your opinion?"

Over three-quarters - - 76% - - said the patient should be able to receive food and fluids. Less than one in seven - - 14% - - said the doctor should be allowed to withhold food and fluids.

"A seriously ill patient has indicated that they want life support, but the doctor thinks the patient's quality of life is too low to merit life support."

Almost exactly the same response: 77% said the patient should be allowed to receive life support. Only 15% said the doctor should be allowed to withhold life support.

Another intriguing question:

"A seriously ill patient is unconscious and has never expressed a desire for or against receiving food and fluids, should he or she require it." What if the patient's family wants food and fluids "but the doctor thinks the patient's quality of life is too low to merit food and fluids"?

Again, 72% say the family should be able to get food and fluids for the patient. A mere 18% say the doctor should be allowed to withhold food and fluids.

Finally, "A seriously ill patient is unconscious and has never expressed a desire for or against life support, should they require it." Once more, if the family wants it "but the doctor thinks the patient's quality of life is too low to merit life support," what do people think?

The numbers almost exactly track prior responses: 74% say the family should be able to get life support for the patient. Only 15% say the doctor should be allowed to withhold life support.

When the public is given an unbiased question to answer, the response is overwhelmingly in favor of feeding and hydrating the patient and overwhelmingly in favor of life support.