Schiavo's Case

From a legal stand point, we cannot advocate the process of “euthanasia” in any way shape or form. Marion General hospital stands for health and prosperity, and patient’s wellbeing above all! Dr. Rana Vijay has presented a concern with this request and that he feels she is not sue of this decision and had her to take some time to think of her request. I do not believe that the patient Margie Whitson has consider the doctors ethical beliefs and just assume she would have her wishes granted, just because she asked.

If I had to make the decision on what to do in Terri Schaivo’s case I would do what Michael Schiavo had done, I would fight to have the feeding tube removed. I believe that if a person has no quality of life and is in a PVS state, they have no feelings, they feel no pain, and they are not aware of their surroundings. According to the article Terri Schiavo and End-of-Life Decisions “Terri could not continue both to be alive and be free from invasive medical procedures” (Mathes, 2005) I feel keeping them alive is unfair to them and to their loved ones. I also believe that the surrogate decision maker should follow the “best interest” standard, which is, given the medical facts and prognosis, make decisions that would be in the best interests of the patient. (Hook & Mueller, 2005) There was a lot of evidence and proof from the doctors in regards to the fact that Terri was not going to get better, there were no medical interventions left that could help her. Prolonging treatment for Terri would not have changed her quality of life or made it better. In my opinion, Michael Schiavo acted properly as a surrogate decision maker because first of all, he followed her previously spoken wishes and views and, second of all, he acted in her

Although they accept death, religious Jews prohibit active euthanasia and suicide. Furthermore, the decision to remove a mechanical ventilator from a Jew is more complicated. When dealing with this sort of situation, consultation with the physician and family rabbi

#1 With no change in volume (utilization), is the clinic projected to make a profit?

Does a written document such as a living will decide when someone should die or should the verbal wishes of the incapacitated person be followed if known? Such as the controversy over when life begins, we now face the ultimate question of when does life end. In 1990, Terri Schiavo, a young Florida woman suffered a heart attack caused by bulimia leaving her brain without oxygen for six minutes. According to medical opinions, she has limited involuntary physical movement. She has remained in a persistent vegetative state ever since. Terri did not have a living will or medical directive in place at the time of her heart attack.

Schiavo accepted the doctors diagnosis of persistent vegetative and decided he wanted to remove her from the ventilator (Quill, 2005). The article says he was recalling prior statements that his wife had made, such as “I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine” (Quill, 2005). This is the part where things get tricky. Terri’s parents (the Schindler family) disagreed and did not accept the diagnosis, they believed that Ms. Schiavo’s condition would improve if they continued to provide rehabilitative treatment (citation).

The ethical principles for nurses to practice with beneficence and no maleficence. This legal battle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her family was an ethical debate between continuing artificial life or remove her feeding tube by the request of her husband. Using the theories of utilitarianism and deontology can be applied or considered in making the most ethically correct resolution. The cases are very complex and raise many moral and ethical issues. The cases have brought awareness to society of “the importance of discussing end-of-life issues with family members and underscores how an advance directive, a living will and/or durable power of attorney for health care, are a healthcare proxy clarifies and provides evidence of the wishes of an individual regarding end-of-life decisions. Terri Schiavo should impress upon laypersons and professionals alike the uncertainty of the context in which issues of continuation and termination are argued ethically. Nobody knows what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted. She left no advance directive and in its absence her husband says one thing and her parents

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

Having read and analyzed this article in my opinion Mr. James Rachels successfully argues that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable. First of all and to better understand the position of the author we need to understand the principal concepts involved in this article. We need to define euthanasia and classify the different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia is considered as a good death, it is the act or omission that accelerates the death of a patient sick with no cure, with or without their approval (as in the case of people in a coma), with the intention of stopping suffering and pain. Euthanasia is associated with the end of life to stop or avoid suffering.

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

Although my stand on the Schiavo case is not entirely based on Catholicism or its teachings, I believe the church would agree with my decision to have kept Terri Schiavo alive. However, I believe that if Schiavo had contracted a life-threatening condition, and had been in a persisting vegetative state, the person responsible for Terri, whether it had been her parents, or husband, would have definitely been within their rights to quickly and peacefully end her life. Also, the Catholic Church would have probably seen Michael Schiavo's alleged infidelity and desire to re-marry as a motive to end his wife's medically assisted existence.

Terri Schiavo, age 26, collapsed in her home in February of 1990. When the emergency crew arrived, she was in full cardiac arrest. It is later revealed that it was caused by potassium deficiency, as she had the eating disorder bulimia. It is suspected that Michael, her husband, has tried to strangle her, based upon a neck injury she received upon being admitted to the hospital. The cardiac arrest led to oxygen being cut off to her brain, causing her to fall into a coma. She emerged, and even though Terri has extreme brain damage, she was able to maintain a heartbeat and breath on her own. She was able to hold her doctor, Dr. Cheshire’s gaze for a limited amount of time, smiled and seemed to recognize familiar voices. Terri’s

However, it is very hard to stand which options are to be rightfully considered. The question should be: What does the patient really wants? How does the patient feels toward the pain that he or she is in to? It would have been easier to decide if the patient can choose for himself or if he or she gave a prior instruction or consent to his family. In most cases, this scenario is not being tackled in the family and everyone is therefore unprepared for this case. That is why the sentiments of the families when faced with this kind of situation are beyond compare. In worse cases, members of the family may have different opinions on this issue. Worst when the ones who strongly stand for a life sustaining support are the ones who cannot pledge to support the cost of the hospital bill. Putting on the apparatus might be a relief from the start but could be more painful the sooner they will decide the removal of the respirator due to monetary

He had to consciously make a decision to do what was best for all those involved, not just one patient. If you look at the Divine Command Theory, this view holds a moral obligation, right and wrong, good and evil and is based on the special revelation from God, sometimes beyond rational reason. The decision Dr. Kariem’s finally made was to remove patient one from the respirator and place patient two on the respirator. Ironically, this was the decision that my partner and I came up with in our small group. I did not know the final outcome but I based this decision on the fact that Dr. Kariem projected that patient one would only need the respirator for a week or so. When patient two come in a week later, patient one had no improvement. At that point, I would need to make an innate decision and logically speaking; patient one was probably not going to live. I would shift my care to the patient I knew more than likely, I could save. With that said, you also need to do what is best for the majority of those involved. Dr. Kariem’s believed that as long as you save who you can you are not committing a sin, even in the outcome is death. Luckily, patient three ended up not needing the respirator after all, so Dr. Kariem was able to save two of the three patients