Zogby's Schiavo Questions Look OK

The Zogby poll probing public thought regarding end-of-life issues in a Schiavo light was a welcomed counterpoint to polls by ABC and others that seem to show America as a heartless, uncaring nation well on the road to becoming a euthanasia nation. Now some conservative -- not liberal -- bloggers are asking questions about it.

See Michelle Malkin's good summary.

I've reviewed the entire poll questionnaire (courtesy of Michelle's link to it via Football Fans for Truth), and if anything, I feel better than I did before.

Let's quickly dispense with the first challenge, that the poll was conducted by Zogby on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition. And worse, that when you pull up the pdf of the poll questions (click "link," above), you'll see it's an Operation Rescue document. Both the CDC and Operation Rescue are intense and visible groups that have pushed the limit of the law to defend Right to Life and protest excessive separation of church and state. Their involvement will give the Right-to-Kill groups a free pass to dismiss Zogby's results as biased ... except that the poll appears to be very deliberately balanced.

If you scroll through the "valid percentage" column in the poll results, you will find the demographics of its sample quite accrately reflect the population, without the biasing that was evident in the earlier ABC poll.

The questions themselves appear to be straightforwardly worded for the world of political polling. Here they are, along with the results and some commentary:

Do you agree or disagree that the law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse?
Agree: 45.6 Disagree: 39.1 N/S 15.3

If a person becomes incapacitated and has no written statement that expresses his or her wishes regarding health care, should the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube... [pdf ends here].
Wants to Live: 44.2 Wants to die: 23.7 N/S; 32.1 Those who have a "presumption of death" are surprisingly high.

When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place?
Remove: 13.5 Remain: 44.0 N/S: 42.5 The level of "not sure" answers shows that this is an issue that is very much in play; the N/S percentage is quite a bit higher than one sees typically in surveys.

The next series is interesting, as it poses the disabled -- a new area of law -- against minorities -- an established area of law. The results should be quite frightening to the disabled.
Do you agree or disagree that the representative branch of governments should
intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?
Agree: 41.8 Disagree: 48.1 N/S: 10.1

Do you agree or disagree that the representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?
Agree: 43.1 Disagree: 25.0 N/S 7.3

Do you agree or disagree that hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be [pdf breaks off here; presumably concludes "removed?"]
Agree: 31.0 Disagree: 57.3 N/S 11.7

If there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube, do you agree or disagree that elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person's right to live?
Agree: 38.2 Disagree: 53.8 N/S: 8 This is a pretty straightforward question that's been well set up by the preceding ones; still there is strong opposition to federal involvement in what people perceive as a "family" issue, not a "policy" issue.

Do you agree or disagree that it is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?
Agree: 73/5 Disagree: 18.7 N/S: 7.8 Yet, where the law is established and there's the perception that it's a societal issue, not a family issue, federal intervention is fine.

Do you agree or disagree that it is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge's order?
Agree: 44.3 Disagree: 42.8 N/S: 13.0 Some might argue that the previous question on civil rights prejudices the anser to this one. Nevertheless, the answer is stronger than anything seen on MSM polls.

If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?
Should: 7.0 Sould not: 80.3 N/S: 12.8 This was the well-publicized question from the initial news on the Zogby poll (what there was of it). It is a very well constructed question and its placement follows the construction of the poll, so there is no valid grounds for criticizing it. The results are overwhelming.

Michael Schiavo has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her. Considering this, do you agree or disagree that Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents?
Agree: 56.2 Disagree: 35.1 N/S: 8.6 Ta-da. The American people have shown once again that they are able to make good decisions when provided with good information.