More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Race (Asian) voters
Last answered 34 minutes ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Race (Asian) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Aug 30, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Race data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
6 years ago by catholicnewsagency.com
6 years ago by net.au
6 years ago by news.com.au
7 years ago by bbc.co.uk
7 years ago by dailymail.co.uk
7 years ago by net.au
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
This would be likely abused by heirs for a nefarious purpose. The terminally ill patient ,if cognizant of this choice determines it to be in his or her best interest then OK but there should be a minimal waiting period. 7 years ago from a Democrat in North Little Rock, AR
If they are in lots of pain and are on their death bead. 7 years ago from a Republican in Las Vegas, NV
With the proviso that 3 different treatments have been tried and that there is a document in place constructed by the patient and their legal advisors covering the conditions such an action would be warranted. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Haddonfield, NJ
Yes, but only if the patient is in a sound mental state and makes the decision them self. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Piedmont, CA
Choice should be between patient (family) and doctor. 7 years ago from a Democrat in San Francisco, CA
Not my business to tell someone they can or can't. 7 years ago from a Republican in Redmond, WA
No because it would require doctors to kill their patients. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Chicago, IL
Yes, but only if there is no chance of recovery, as well as after a psychological examination to prove they are in a sound mental state, and living is causing them physical and mental pain. 7 years ago from a Socialist in Carson, CA
Yes but Only after the insurance companies like Blue Cross and their self serving front group compasionandchoices.org is removed from the training, protocol, and law crafting of MOLST. (see it's initiation in New York) Also the public and health care providers need to understand the just how terminal a "terminal illness" is anyway. Illnesses are much more terminal when insurance companies don't want to pay for them and the same insurance company initiates legislation mandating that a doctor discuss MOLST which is tantamount to euthanasia. Most patients will do what their doctor steers them to do, and they will think they are making their own choice.
MOLST stands for Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment. 7 years ago from a Socialist in Coronado, CA
It should be available to those who so choose go that way. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Medina, WA
Only in the most dire/extreme circumstances with patient in sound mental state; (i.e., pain & suffering, etc.), and sactioned and handled by patient's medical doctors and a legal rep appointed by court. Each state should decide if they want to... 7 years ago from a Republican in Las Vegas, NV