Terri Schiavo Case Summary

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

In “Active and Passive Euthanasia” Rachels demonstrates the similarities between passive and active euthanasia. He claims that if one is permissible, than the other must also be accessible to a patient who prefers that particular fate. Rachels spends the majority of the article arguing against the recommendations of the AMA. The AMA proposes that active euthanasia contradicts what the medical profession stands for. The AMA thinks that ending a person’s life is ethically wrong, yet believes that a competent patient has a right to choose passive euthanasia, meaning to refuse treatment in this case. Rachels makes four claims arguing against that AMA statement.

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

Hampson, L. A., & Emanuel, E. J. (2005). The prognosis for changes in end-of-life care after the schiavo case. Health Affairs, 24(4), 972-5.

There has been a lot of talk over euthanasia. Some people are unaware of the difference of passive and active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This study will inform the readers of the differences and what is better for a patient and doctor to do. I believe that physician assisted suicide is the best moral option to go through in a case of a terminal illness.

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

Many people wish to be euthanized if they were caught in such circumstances such as a vegetative

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.

There are some ethical dilemmas evident in this scenario, starting with an End of life dilemma, refusal of care and informed consent.“End of

On February 25, 1990, the case of Terri Schiavo began, beginning a court battle between her new husband and her parents. Questions about the right to live, her wishes, and quality vs quantity of life were a few of the issues that were trying to be answered. According to ABC news Terri Schiavo collapsed in her house on February 25, 1990 from what doctors believed was from a potassium imbalance. She collapsed in her home, her heart stopped beating, and her brain went without oxygen leaving her in a coma after resuscitation.(ABC News, 2006) Her husband took her to California for an experimental rain stimulator treatment but it was unsuccessful leaving Terri in a permanent vegetative state.

The Terri Shiavo case had a significant impact on legislation. After numerous appeals in the court regarding both removing as well as reinstating ANH (Artificial Nutrition and Hydration), the in 2003, the Florida House and Senate passed "Terri's Law" which for the first time in history granted permission to governor to direct a specific medical act be carried out on the patient. In 2004, the Florida Supreme court declared "Terri's Law" as retroactive legislation citing separation of powers and citizens' right to privacy as justification.

Not only did she live in a persistent vegetative state her family had endured having to look at their loved one in that

After reading more the Oregon Model in our text I’m still on the fence. Maybe my reasons are selfish but I do not all the way agree with the legalization of this. Also coming from a strong religious background it’s very hard to believe in this. For instance my grandmother is in a rehab center due to having stroke. It’s been over a year now and she has had many ups and downs through the past year. Many times she has said she want it to over and she wanted to go to heaven. When she first started the depressive state it lasted a few months, then it became less frequent. I could image agreeing or her agreeing to take her life. I know Terri Schiavo case was much more serve but I’m sure her family had to go back and forth in their heads about that

1) Patients have the right to make their own informed decisions about if and how they die. When a chronically ill patient decides life is no longer worth living because of the insurmountable pain they are in, who are we to tell them differently? There are cases where attempts to cure are doing more harm than good, not only mentally and physically to the patient, but emotionally to his family and loved ones as well.

    One of the biggest controversies of this decade is euthanasia. Euthanasia is "inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful?(Henrickson and Martin 24). There are four types of euthanasia voluntary and direct, voluntary but indirect, direct but involuntary, and indirect and involuntary. Voluntary and direct euthanasia is "chosen and carried out by the patient.? Voluntary but indirect euthanasia is chosen in advance. Direct but involuntary euthanasia is done for the patient without his or her request. Indirect and involuntary euthanasia occurs when a hospital decides that it is time to remove life support (Fletcher 42-3).