An examination into the case of Theresa Schiavo demonstrates both sides of the fierce medico-political debate over the sanctity versus quality of life. Shortly after her marriage in 1990, Mrs. Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest which deprived her brain of oxygen for approximately eleven minutes, more than five minutes longer than medical experts believe is possible without consequence of serious and irreversible brain damage. She fell into a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Thus began a fifteen year battle over the sanctity and quality of Mrs. Schiavo’s life.
Mr. Schiavo maintained that it was Mrs. Schiavo’s wish that she not be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents fought to keep her alive believing that some miracle would bring her out of the PVS. Experts on both sides of the debate weighed in. Bioethicists, experts in the treatment of terminally and chronically ill patients, overall agreed with Mr. Schiavo that prolonging her life would not lead to a productive life as she would never recover. They further found that he was acting in her best interests, not for want of personal gain.
Meanwhile, politicians attempted to exact their personal beliefs into the medical decisions that needed to be made. They went so far as to enact “Terry’s Law” replacing State court jurisdiction with Federal District Court jurisdiction. This law gave Mrs. Schiavo’s parents a way around the lower court’s ruling upholding Mr. Schiavo’s rights as her guardian and next of kin. However, this law was later ruled unconstitutional. As a result, Mr. Schiavo’s medical decisions were eventually fulfilled and Mrs. Schiavo was permitted to pass peacefully and naturally. The sanctity of Mrs. Schiavo’s life was preserved by wei...
... middle of paper ...
... things that one intentionally sets out to achieve or obtain. Life is not an ultimate value, but yet a basic value. The conclusion can then be drawn that while life must exist for value to exist, the purpose in living is not the continuation of physical biological mechanisms. The purpose in living then becomes the way in which one lives and achieves one’s values. In essence, the purpose in life becomes the pursuit of values. The ultimate value of maximizing quantity of life should be balanced with maximizing quality of life.
Life, and thus sanctity of life, is finite; death is irrefutable. Quality of life is infinite. Every minute of life is an opportunity to learn and experience it to its abounding potential. While subjective, it is hubris and narcissistic to purport to know which is best, sanctity or quality of life, when examining the life of others.
There are many ethical paradigms through which humans find guidance and justification for their own actions. In the case of contractarianism, citizens of a state are entitled to human rights, considered to be unalienable, and legal rights, which are both protected by the state. As Spinello says, “The problem with most rights-based theories is that they do not provide adequate criteria for resolving practical disputes when rights are in conflict” (14). One case that supports Spinello is the case of Marlise Munoz, a brain-dead pregnant thirty-three year old, who was wrongly kept on life support for nearly two months at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. Misinterpretation of the Texas Advance Directives Act by John Peter Smith Hospital led to the violation of the contractarian paradigm. Although the hospital was following the directive in order to maintain legal immunity for its hospital staff, the rights of the family were violated along with the medical fundamental principle to “first, do no harm.”
In recounting Henrietta Lacks’ history, Rebecca Skloot in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, does not shy away from moral complexities such as informed consent and ethics. She uses narratives from Henrietta’s life to show how ethical wrongdoings of the hospital affected not only Henrietta’s existence, but her family’s. Text on the front and inside cover of Skloot’s book conveys this exact message, “Doctors took her cells without asking… Henrietta’s family did not learn of her ‘immortality’ until more than 20 years after her death, when scientists investigating HeLa began using her husband and children in research without informed consent. ” Throughout her book, Skloot skillfully analyses a real story of medical ethics by pointing out ironic situations and conveying her argument by an equal amount of
A case such as this one was the first of its kind, so the outcome of the trials was very important for setting a precedent in similar cases in the future. This is a Landmark Case for long-term comatose patients without a mandate. From then on, there would be no more legal issues when facing this type of situation. It is also important to note that American conservative groups used this case to promote their disapproval of Mr. Schiavo’s position, in a failed attempt to end the Death with Dignity Act.
On April 15, 1975, the Quinlan family received a tragic phone call at approximately 2am; their daughter, Karen Ann, was in a coma. Earlier that evening, Quinlan was at a party and consumed drugs and alcohol. She became unconscious and eventually fell into an irreversible coma. She was conditioned to be in a persistent vegetative state. Since she was unable to recover from her coma, Quinlan’s parents requested her life support to be withheld. The removal of life support was more complicated than what the Quinlan family imagined it to be. They had to take the case to court to have the request approved. The first round in Superior court, the Quinlans lost. Eventually, the family took the case to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court ruled that Quinlan’s father is appointed as her guardian and can make any decision regarding her care. It took the family over a year to have the approval to remove their daughter from life support; it took five days for Karen Ann Quinlan to be weaned off her respirator. Miraculously, she was able to breathe on her own for the next nine years until she died of pneumonia. This case led to the creation of the “living will” and required medical institutions to allow patients to live their last stage in life with dignity and respect (Karen Ann Quinlan Hospice
Overall, it is vital to apprehend that when looking at the value of life, we are able to see in a view that surpasses all of the mess ups, failures, and setbacks. That looks passed all of the achievements, accomplishments, and profits. What truly defines the value of someone's life is looking at is the basic necessity of every human life, the
LIFE AND DEATH TUG OF WAR THE WHOLE TERRI SCHIAVO STORY 15-year saga of brain-injured woman no clear-cut, right-to-die case- DIANA LYNNE Published: 03/24/2005
Christian's Beliefs in the Sanctity of Life Christians believe in the sanctity of life. This means that God
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Until this century, it was rare that brain-dead patients could be kept alive for long periods of time. However, as technological prowess has increased, it has recently become possible to keep a patient alive without higher brain functioning for years and even decades. But, as is always the case with new technology and knowledge, previously unknown ethical issues arise, and thus we have the difficult ethical problems of the Karen Ann Quinlan case.
In 1972 the United States Senate held the first National Hearing on Death with Dignity. The outcome of the hearing “Death with Dignity: An Inquiry into Related Public Issues” was an overwhelming annoyance caused by the use of the term, “medical miracle”. They felt as though it was ironic, the process of dying was only delayed and extended by a medical miracle and takes away from the quality of their life (Dowbiggin, 2003). Because of the present annoyance about using “medical miracles” as an excuse to ignore the idea of Death with Dignity, not much was accomplished at this hearing, besides arguing about a simple phrase. There was no improvement or movement on the actual topic of Death with Dignity.
The one example of this that I found most relevant in the book is the situation of Armando. Armando was shot and the bullet lodged in the spinal canal. It caused enough damage to make him a paraplegic, but not enough to kill him. The ethics committee had decided that it was best to encompass a DNR because he had no health insurance, and his quality of life was not what it was before. When the doctors went to approve this with Armando, he denied the DNR and said that he wanted what ever was necessary to be done to him to save his life (Belkin p. 58-59). This made Cindy worried for the cost of keeping him alive was substantial. All the doctors and caretakers believed that he should be placed under DNR, however that was not what Armando wanted. The doctors believed that was the wrong decision. This correlates to what the quote was from the book on page 70; doctors can tend to be narrow-minded when it comes to the care of a patient. They believe that their course of action is the best and do not agree if the patient wants something different. This I have found is also true in my own personal experience with doctors. For example, when I was about 17 my wisdom teeth were growing in. I was in terrible pan from two of my wisdom teeth being impacted. My
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
However, keep in mind that, even if we accept life is sacred, it is not clear what the best expression of that belief is. That is, if we accept that "life is sacred" it is not clear what action is then recommended. For one, we can't possibly mean by "life is sacred" that the life of e.g., a rational, self-conscious being must always be preserved no matter what. For if we thought that, then we would think that, not only was euthanasia (preformed on e.g., a rational self-conscious person) morally impermissible, but so too would be hang-gliding, flying in airplanes, driving an automobile and so on. After all, these all pose risks to life and presumably, if "life is sacred" entailed that life (of a rational self-conscious being) must always be preserved no matter what, then taking risks with life would have to be unjustified.
Life is the ultimate value for each and every one of us. Probably the single most important thing we can do in life is to serve the purpose in which we were created. I still do not have a clear view of what my Philosophy of life is, but I do have a better understanding of the path I need to take to seek those answers and am well on my way of accomplishing this goal.