Terri Schiavo Case

This problem first began to surface in the 1980s when the court had to face Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. In this case the court had to decide by “clear and convincing evidence” that the comatose patient’s (Nancy Beth Cruzan) desire to terminate her life before the courts would allow her family’s wish of disconnecting her feeding tube be carried out. Unfortunately eight of nine judges said no to the proposition and concluded that the right

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

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

Brittany Maynard was one of the people to use the Death with Dignity Act in Organ and once said,“To have control of my own mind…to go with dignity is less terrifying. When I look at both options I have to die, I feel this is far more humane” (Sandeen, 2014). No matter what, we will all eventually die, but we should have the right to die as humanely as possible. The Death with Dignity Act is an end-of-life choice possibility for terminally ill patients to be given the freedom to decide for themselves what it means to die with dignity. This act allows them to die with dignity by providing them with lethal medications prescribed by a physician (The Oregon Department of Human Services, 2006). The Death with Dignity Act started to allow people with six months or less to live, the right to die in a manner and at the time of their own choosing. Also, even though modern medicine has benefited humanity greatly, it cannot completely resolve the suffering and distress that comes with the dying process, so Death with Dignity can provide a painless end-of-life choice for suffering individuals (Humphry, 2009). Although Death with Dignity is a controversial topic I feel it can be very beneficial especially since people go through a long process just to try to get the medication and the ones that get it really need it. I chose this topic because death always has been interesting to me and I one day hope to have a career

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

Compare the situations surrounding Diane and Debbie in terms of the physicians’ actions and morality surrounding those actions leading to their deaths. How are the cases similar? How are they different? What was the situation surrounding Terri Schiavo? How does her situation compare to the Diane and Debbie cases? What are the major ethical issues involved in each of these three cases? How are their cases similar? What are the ethically relevant, salient differences between them? What do you personally take away as the “moral of the story” for these three cases?

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack which caused severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain. According to doctors, she was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Terri was on life support and unresponsive for years. Terri’s husband believed Terri wouldn’t have wanted to be on life support if there were no chances of her recovering so he ordered for them to remove her feeding tubes. Unfortunately, her parents weren’t on the same page. They believed there was a possible chance of recovering even though she showed absolutely no signs of recovery. Terri’s husband later petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida to remove her feeding tubes. The court then determined that Terri wouldn’t have wanted to pro-long her life under

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

The case of Terri Schiavo is a landmark case that involved a fifteen year battle over whether or not to provide life support for Terri Schiavo who was 26 years old when she collapsed in her bedroom in February of 1990. According to Munson (2012), Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael Schiavo, claimed to have woken to the sound of a thud at approximately four a.m. and found Terri unconscious on the floor. He called 911, but Terri had suffered cardiac arrest and by the time she was resuscitated she had suffered irreversible brain damage.

The principles of justice, nonmaleficence, and beneficence must be considered in this situation as the patient herself has neither voice nor living will expressing her desires. An ethical theory that applies to this situation is rule utilitarianism. This theory is a hybrid of deontological and utilitarian approaches (Purtilo & Doherty, 2012). Terri’s husband feels that he is legally honoring her wishes by allowing Terri to die as the natural consequence of her unfortunate medical condition. Using the utilitarian theory removing her feeding tube justifies the end goal of death. For her family, they feel a duty to Terri and having her feeding tube removed betrays their sense of duty and right. Conflict resolution, in this case, must consider promoting the person’s good or prevention of further harm to the patient. Ethical theories and principles can guide the best

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.

The autonomy of a competent patient is an issue not often debated in medical ethics. Refusal of unwanted treatment is a basic right, likened to the common law of battery, available to all people capable of a competent choice. These fundamental rules of medical ethics entered a completely new forum as medical technology developed highly effective life-sustaining care during the 20th century. Several watershed cases elucidated these emerging issues in the 1960’s and 70’s, none more effectively than that of Karen Ann Quinlan. Fundamentally, this case established that a once-competent patient without the possibility of recovery could have their autonomy exercised by a surrogate in regard to the

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.

Is it better to be dead than sick or disabled? Who decides when it is times for us to go? In the case of Earle Spring, his life depends on the court order. Earle Spring was an old man whose mental and physical health declined as he aged. The doctors kept him on a dialysis machine to keep him alive. Not too long after his condition began to worsen, his family requested him to be removed from the treatment and let him die peace fully because they thought that Earle Spring would not want to live as what his mental states are right now. How would the family know if that is what Earle Spring really wanted? Earle Spring is neither competent nor comatose. In recent discussion of euthanasia, a controversial issue has been argued whether a terminally ill patient should get the rights to choose when and how they live should ended. While some argue that euthanasia should be allowed to end a person life voluntary or involuntary, others contend that either should allow. Euthanasia should not be the choice to end a terminally ill patient life because it violates the patient rights, devalues some lives, and it gives doctors too much power.