The ethical dilemma of Terri Schiavo’s case was the removal of her feeding tube to end her life. Terri Schiavo was left mentally incognitive and unable to care for herself after a cardiac arrest. Although, the patient was still minimally conscious at the time; as nurses and doctors stated in her medical records (Christian TV, 2010). Michael Schiavo, the husband of Terri filed a court order for her feeding tube to be removed and for the patient to be left without food and water until death. Terri Schiavo’s parents and siblings fought the court for the feeding tube to put back on and for it to stay. Unfortunately, in the end Terri Schiavo died because of starvation and dehydration. One would believe that this was an ethical dilemma, because …show more content…
it involved ending a person’s life. There was no written will that indicated that Terri Schiavo would not like to be put on a feeding tube or to live the way she had after her cardiac arrest. The decision was made by her husband who stopped her therapy and treatments a while back and started to date other women thereafter. It was a real ethical dilemma because there were two sides in this case, one was to end her life and the other was to keep her alive. Terri’s family fought to keep her alive and took care of her until the very end of her life. According to dictionary.com personhood is “the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings” (2016, pg. 1). In Terri Schiavo’s case, her inability to speak and perform daily activities of living did not mean she had no human characteristics or was she no longer a person. She was able to interact in her own way by smiling, minimal movement and eye contact with her family. Terri’s condition disabled her but did not make her any less of a person. With that being said, disability should not define personhood. If someone has not made medical wishes known, and they become incapacitated he or she is entitled to receive medical care to keep them alive.
Different states have different laws, some say that if the person is legally married, then the spouse will be responsible to make decisions regarding his or her care. If the person is not married, then the family or guardian will make the decision for that person. An ethics consultation is available to help determine or assess what that person would want if there is no advance directive (Cedars-Sinai, 2016). In other states like Florida, the court will appoint a guardian to make decisions for the incapacitated patient and the spouse is a secondary guardian. In Terri’s case her husband, Michael was the appointed guardian and was able to make decisions for her medical treatment (Marker, 2013). One would ask, were the decisions made by Michael for Terri’s care the best choices for her? Were they ethically right? Was the court right to appoint Michael as the primary guardian for Terri? When there is a dispute about plan of care for an incapacitated patient, the state court of law has the final decision (de Roos & Harrison, 2012). This is what happened in Terri Schiavo’s case. The state of Florida decided to appoint Michael Shiavo as the guardian, who then made the decisions for Terri. In addition, they ruled with Michael in regards to the removal of Terri’s feeding tube which led to her
death. Based on the State Bar of Arizona, anyone or an entity such as private fiduciary can be appointed as a guardian. In Arizona, the law has list of priorities from high to low when considering appointing a guardian for both minor and incapacitated individual. Although, a person in lower priority can be chosen over a person in high priority if this is in the best interest of the incapacitated individual. The individuals who can be nominated as the appointed guardian are the power of attorney, the individual’s spouse, an adult child, a parent, person nominated in a will, and a person who has lived with the individual for more than six months (State Bar of Arizona, 2016). A guardian has the power “to make personal decisions for the individual relating to the living arrangements, education, social activities, and authorization or withholding of medical or other professional care, treatment, or advice” (State Bar of Arizona, 2016, para 11). The family was not allowed to take care of Terri because they were not the appointed guardian by the state court. Only the appointed guardian has the right to make decisions in regards to the individual’s care. The writer believed that the legal system failed to ensure the safety of an incapacitated individual. The legal system failed to make an ethically right decision to benefit a person who is unable to make a decision for herself. Honestly, most of the resources regarding the Terri Shiavo case were unbiased to her husband. The documentary and story that are floating around the internet are focu,s on how Michael Schiavo decision to discontinue the tube feeding was wrong. In addition, Terri’s brother Bobby Schindler’s presumption that Michael Schiavo was after Terri’s medical trust fund (Schindler, 2015). Michael Schiavo was portrayed as selfish, unethical and money hungry man in many of the documentaries about Terri Schiavo’s case. The author believed that hearing only one side of the story made it easier for the author to think that the decision made by Michael Schiavo was unethical and wrong. Although, after reading the statement of the American Nurse Association on the Terri Schiavo case; which states that there was evidence found that proving that Terri Schiavo expressed that she did not want to be put on some kind of life support in situation like this (ANA, 2005). On the other hand, the author did not think that a feeding tube in Terri Schiavo’s case is a form of life support. One can argue that she needs it to stay alive, but she was clearly conscious and was not terminally ill. She needed to be placed in a feeding tube because she was not able to swallow and eat on her own. “Terri’s Law” was executed in 2003 which gives Governor Jeb Bush the power to intervene in the case of Terri Shiavo and would be able to order the feeding tube to be reinserted (CBSNews, 2016). After several months, the “Terri’s Law” was overruled by the Florida Supreme Court (CNN, 2004).
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.”
Terry Shiavo was a young female, who became sick after she had an accident in which left her brain dead for the rest of her life. Her husband, Michael Shiavo was her caretaker and was later appointed as her legal guardian on June 18, 1990. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/). This was a struggle for Mr. Shiavo, as it would have been for me and many others. From this point on, Mr. Shiavo knew that he had a hard and long struggle dealing with the fact that his wife, whom he loved, is now brain dead, and he is the one left to care for her and make medical decision on her behalf. Her family was there for her also, and this is how all of this became a problem between Mr. Shiavo, and Terry's' parents Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.
Signing for the treatment, procedures, medications. He or she has the right if the patient death the appointee has the right to order where the burial should take place. The family members in this case have zero rights, they are unable to exercises any thing because of the legal stand point of the living will. But if the patient in question has no living will under the different laws the person in command is her or her spouse if there is no spouse. The next in commander is his or her children’s.
Terri Schiavo is a forty year old women who had a severe heart attack 15 years ago which resulted in brain damage. She had no living will so there is no legal document of what she would have wanted if she became brain damage and couldn’t function on her own but her husband, Michael Schiavo, says that after 15 years of being on a feeding tube she would have wanted to die. The question is should he have the right to remove the feeding tube? Anybody who knows me will know that my answer is no! The reason for that is because I am a Christian and I do not believe in terminating someone’s life. It’s my belief that as long as a persons heart is beating he or she stills has life in them.
Barbara Huttman’s “A Crime of Compassion” has many warrants yet the thesis is not qualified. This is a story that explains the struggles of being a nurse and having to make split-second decisions, whether they are right or wrong. Barbara was a nurse who was taking care of a cancer patient named Mac. Mac had wasted away to a 60-pound skeleton (95). When he walked into the hospital, he was a macho police officer who believed he could single-handedly protect the whole city (95). His condition worsened every day until it got so bad that he had to be resuscitated two or three times a day. Barbara eventually gave into his wishes to be let go. Do you believe we should have the right to die?
Prior to discussing why Advanced Directives are so essential the definition of Advanced Directives is crucial. An Advanced Directive is made up of several legal components which ultimately online the patient’s wishes if one was to be incapacitated or unable to verbally make wishes know regarding healthcare. The understanding of what a living will and a durable power of attorney both need to be discussed before one is able to compare and contrast. A living will ensures that anyone reading this paper will understand how the patient wanted to continue their form of treatment. With a living will anyone ranging from patients to healthcare professions should be able to determine the specific actions the patients would want taken if they are unable to make said wishes known. A
There was a woman named Terri Schiavo who was declared in a permanent vegetative condition by doctors for 15 years because of severe brain damage she received. Her husband, who was her legal guardian, claimed she voiced her opinion that she never desired to be kept alive on life support if anything ever happened to her. In order to keep Terri alive she was required to be nourished by force feeding her through a feeding tube, which her parents were doing to keep her alive in a vegetable condition. Her parents desired to prolong her life and keep them from having to suffer losing her by continuing to do this so the husband was not hampered with taking care of her. Terri’s parents tried to use religion as a way of keeping their daughter alive
The end of life is inevitable. For most it is for seen and understood what ones final wishes are. Living wills provide those issues in question with answers. What if an individual does not have a living will? Who would be in charge in making final decisions for someone who cannot physically make those decisions? The story of Terri Schiavo brings about many questions that represents moral, ethical, and legal issues.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
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
Johnson, Harriet McBryde. "Not Dead at All: Why Congress Was Right to Stick up for Terri Schiavo." Slate Magazine, 23 March 2005
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
Recently, a family decided to end treatment for their 21 month old baby girl in the only “humane way” possible: nutrition withdrawal (Bever, 2014). In September, 19-month old Natalie Newton wandered into the family’s pool unsupervised by her parents. When she was found, Natalie was blue in the face from lack of oxygen and immediately rushed to the hospital. Though they were able to revive her, doctors informed the family that Natalie would not live; she was deaf, blind, unable to move and ultimately brain dead from being withdrawn from oxygen for as long as she had been. While Natalie remained immobile and dead to the world, her parents begged the physicians to euthanize their child. However, currently in the state of Texas, euthanziation is illegal and the hospital’s ethics committee would not allow it. The only method they allowed that they considered humane, was to withhold both nutrition and hydration from Natalie. While it’s always traumatic for any parent to watch their child die, the Newton’s looked on as it took nine full days for Natalie to finally pass away from lack of nutrition. The parents argue ...
Advance directives might have many guidelines for patient’s preferences with regard to any number of life-affecting, or end of life situations, such as chronic disease or accident resulting in traumatic injury. It can include directions for other health situations, such as short-term unconsciousness, impairment by Alzheimer disease or dementia. These guidelines may consider do-not- resuscitate (DNR) orders if the heart or breathing stops, tube-feeding, or organ and tissue donation. The directive might name a specific person, or proxy, to direct care or may be very general with only basic instructions given for treatment in time of the incapacitation of a patient. Some states say that if you do not have a written directive, a spoken directive is acceptable.