Terri Schiavo Case

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

The appellant of the Cruzan v. Missouri case was the parents of Nancy Cruzan, Joe Cruzan and Joyce Cruzan. The Cruzans argued that when they made the decision to hook Nancy up to a feeding and hydration tube they were unaware that Nancy would be in the vegetative state permanently, they thought she would make it (Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503).

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

In the Schiavo case she had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder, this ended up causing her to be in a PVS. She had no say in her care or her dying. Unable to speak and leaving no written orders or thoughts on how she would want to deal with a situation like this it was left up to the family. Eventually it was decided to stop her tube feedings and hydration.

On February 28, 1990, twenty six-year old Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage when her heart stopped for five minutes. Terri's condition was the subject of intense debate and media scrutiny over the subject of euthanasia and guardianship. Given the circumstances of Terri's vegetated condition, and no physical proof of her wishes, the last word on whether or not Terri would stay alive was given to her husband Michael Schiavo, by the state of Florida. Michael's argument was that he was carrying out her wishes to not be kept alive in that state. Terri's family challenged Michael's claims saying she is responsive and in no discomfort, that her condition does not meet the medical definition of

Terri Schindler-Schiavo spent 13 years in a coma, attached to feeding tubes and unable to communicate. On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed in her home. While the actual circumstances that led to her collapse are speculative, doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to stop, temporarily cutting off oxygen to her brain (Associated Press April 30, 2001). Terri fell into a coma and was hospitalized and ultimately placed on a feeding tube to provide hydration and nutrition. According to the doctors attending to Terri in 2001, death would occur within one to two weeks of removal of the equipment that is providing food and hydration to her (St. Petersburg

The fight between Mr. Schiavo and the Schindler family began in 1993 which is three years after Terri’s diagnoses. The fight continued between the parents and husband, Terri’s feeding tube was removed in 2001, put back in, removed again in 2003 and a third time on March 18, 2005 (Quill, 2005). Congress then passed an “emergency measure” that was signed by the president in an effort to force federal courts to review this case and create a legal mandate for her feeding tube to be reinserted yet again (Quill, 2005). The district court of Florida denied the emergency request and this decision was upheld on appeal, multiple appeals were denied and Ms. Schiavo died March 31, 2005 (Quill, 2005). Therefore, Terri was on a ventilator in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years.

Why is it relevant to pull the plug on life support or keep it? Theresa Marie Schiavo also known as Terri collapsed due to low potassium levels caused by bulimia (according to her autopsy) at twenty-six years and three months old leaving her in an vegetative state in the year of 1990. In the year 1998, Terrie’s husband Michael Schiavo started a petition to pull his wife's feeding tube. After fifteen long years of fighting and attempts to pull her feeding tube, Theresa Marie Schiavo died peacefully at forty-one years on March 18, 2005. Now ask yourself this; was it ethical to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube?

Terri Schiavo, a young 26 year-old girl who collapsed on February 25th 1990. Her potassium level was very low, which is why she had lost consciousness. While she was unconscious she was deprived of oxygen in her brain, long enough to leave her in a “persistent vegetative state,” a condition that is not to be confused with brain death. She could breathe without assistance, but she was incapable of thought or emotion. She was put on a feeding tube because she couldn't eat, she has been like this for 15 years. Then Terri’s husband stated that the hospital should take out her feeding tube and let her starve to death, but Terri’s parents refused and wanted to keep her alive.

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

Being Mortal Response Paper While watching the “Being Mortal” video, a lot of my previous life of being a Paramedic replays in my mind. Many times I was faced with life and death decisions and the ethics involved. One such example was nursing home patient that was 94 years old; she had been bedridden, family that rarely visited her. She had been in the facility for over 20 years; she was nonverbal due to previous strokes. One this particular day she was in full cardiac arrest.

Mr McNally told jurors: 'She was bed bound and extremely frail and it is the expert’s professional opinion that she suffered from dementia and wasn’t able

Pictured above is Jahi McMath and her mother. Jahi’s tragic story illustrates a common misunderstanding about death which could have possibly been remedied years ago. As related on the previous slide, it is difficult, and, at times impossible, for a family to accept brain stem death because their loved one appears to be breathing.

she passed at the age of 96. There was no evidence of Alzheimer’s disease with her at all and up

In Re Wanglie, eighty-six year old Mrs. Wanglie, suffered from anoxic encephalopathy and failed to regain consciousness. Shortly afterwards, physicians concluded that any treatment would be futile. And as a result, they insisted on discontinuing her treatment. Conversely, her husband was opposed to their idea. His opposition forced the hospital to provide futile treatment to the patient. This case leads to a controversial issue, as the courts could not reach a ruling and the hospital had to continue to provide treatment to Mrs. Wanglie. Ultimately, many hospitals, across the United States, have a limited amount of resources and poor allocation of them can result in the death of a person(s) who have a chance at