More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to terri schiavo case
Terri Schiavo case
Terri schiavo case legal ethical and medical perspective essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Terri Schiavo
Life or Death
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.
In the New York Times Abby Goodnough and Maria Newman reports that on March 30 that the parents of Terri Schiavo latest appeal was turn down. It stated that one of the judges Stanley F. Birch, wrote that it was in his opinion the special law that was hastily passed by Congress on March 21 was unconstitutional. It was immediately signed by President Bush in hopes that it would help Terri’s parents. He says that it was unconstitutional and violated the principal of separation of powers. I understand under the federal law if there is no living will to determine who is to have custody of a person in this situation, automatically the decision making fall to a spouse or next in Kin. But in this situation where Mr. Schiavo never mention that Terri wanted to be taken off of the feeding tube until 1998, I can see why the law would be completely fair.
In the Chicago Tribune it stated that some supporters of the Schindlers has doubts of Mr. Schiavo ethics and his fitness for guardianship of Terri. They bought forward affidavits from his former girlfriends saying that they swore he confided in them stating he had no idea what his wife’s end-of-life wishes were. Also former care-givers of Terri stated that Mr. Schiavo was abusive to the home nursing staff and expressed the wish that Terri was dead. I feel this evidence is enough to put the feeding tube back in. To have so many people contest want Mr. Schiavo was saying and to just have the courts ignore it over and over again, I feel is unconstitutional.
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
Munoz was considered medically brain dead. She did not have any noted brain or brain stem activity. This meant that Marlise’s rights were terminated. The rights, then, should remain with the fetus, as it was considered alive. The hospital acting as a surrogate as the patient was unable to let his or her needs be known. Although the fetus had “abnormalitieis” didn’t mean that the fetus’s life was not worth living. Whether this is considered murder is far reaching, in my opinion. We should continue to preserve the life of the baby, whether it is handicap or not. We cannot preserve the life of Marlise, because there is no life to preserve. Taking Marlise off the support means that her own body will be unable to maintain life. What happened to the sanctity of the baby’s life is this particular
In February of 1990 a woman named Terri Schiavo collapsed at home suffering cardiac arrest in her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. She was resuscitated but had severe brain damage because she had no oxygen going to her brain for several minutes. Terri was severely brain damaged and in a vegetative state but could still breathe and maintain a heart beat on her own. After two and a half months and no signs of improvement, impaired vision, and the inability to move her arms and legs she needed a feeding tube to sustain her life since she seemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. For 2 years doctors attempted speech and physical therapy with no success. In 1998 Schiavos husband claimed she would not want to live in that quality of life without a prospect of recovery so he tried several times over the course of many years to pull the feeding tube so she could pass. Bob and Mary Schindler challenged and fought for a
Mr. Shiavo was doing his job as a caretaker for his wife, taking her to get the necessary treatment that she needed and required, and really and truly sticking by his wife in such a rough circumstance. He stated that "my wife had said she would never want to be kept alive if she were in a vegetative state". (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/). He was just honoring what she had wanted to do if this type of situation would ever happen, and he was obeying what she wanted. I have to totally agree with him, and how he tried and did take care of Terry. It gets hard on families and also it can take a toll of them when there is a sick family member who is in need of 24 hour care. Ethically, I see that Michael was right; however I am also in limbo to where I think he could have turned Terry's custody over to her parents, even though he did honor what she wanted. Sometimes families find themselves in a comfort zone by trying to come to peace with there loved ones by sitting there with there loved ones while they are on the machine. I couldn't imagine this struggle between Terry's family and Michael.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a 20th century philosopher, offers her argument defending abortion in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”. She states initially that the fetus has a right to life, although contrary to her argument, she uses it as a premise to develop her thoughts. In short, Thomson says that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the woman’s right to control her body. She forces readers to participate in a thought experiment as she gives an odd example about a violinist suffering from kidney failure. The violist is facing death and in order to prevent it, he needs your help. Because you are the only one with his blood type, you are the only hope for him. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music lovers and, without your consent, hooked up to him and you are filtering his blood and keeping him alive. In order to save his life, you must remain connected to him and support him for nine whole months. Thomson then asks if it is morally wrong to disagree to remain connected to the violinist. It is quite noble to agree to save the man’s life but should his right to life automatically force you to sacrifice nine months of yours?
Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
St. Olaf College's theme for Women's History Month is "Women in Politics." The featured guest speaker was Sarah Weddington, the attorney who, in 1973, argued the winning side of Roe vs. Wade before the United States Supreme Court. This decision significantly influenced women's reproductive rights by overturning the Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States.
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
...t the court left for states to ban late-term abortions. Many feel that a fetus near the end of a pregnancy is simply too like a human to come up with any justification for killing it, unless the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother. The line on the spectrum that the court ended up defining was based on when the fetus becomes viable. Before this point, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and the court left the mother with the ability to withdraw her support from the fetus. After the point of viability, society as a whole is then able to assist in taking care of the infant. This then, is where the fetus gains the added requirement to its right to life discussed earlier.
Justice is something that we all as human being want to see fulfill, especially when we are the one that need it for us or our love ones. The family members of those who were killed by Susan Atkins and her companion will agree with it. The damage cause to their dears and the endless pain and suffering in effect from their death will support the decision take by the parole board in September 2, 2009 in the denial of a compassionate release due to Atkins’ health.
Bob and Mary Schindler brought the issue to Florida courts many times, but every time they ruled that it was Michael Schiavo’s decision. Terri’s parents would not accept the verdict and they kept on fighting to keep their daughter alive. No...
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.
The cases presented the situations of the pregnant single woman, the childless couple, and the practicing physician. They determined that Roe and Hallford had just cause to sue because they presented justiciable controversies. The Doe’s had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy, thus they had no standing for a case. It was decided that with respect to the respect to the requests for a declaratory judgment, abstention was not warranted. The court found that the fundamental rights of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected under the ninth amendment, through the fourteenth amendment. They also found that the Texas abortion statutes are void as vagueness and for overbroadly infringing the ninth and fourteenth amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The district court ruled in Roe’s favor on the legal merits of her case, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring
In the article, Ethics & Life’s Ending: An Exchange, Dr. Robert D. Orr discusses the moral debate about the use or non-use of feeding tubes. Feeding tubes, a medical intervention designed to provide essential nutrition to individuals unable to eat or drink independently, often spark complex ethical discussions within the healthcare community and society. While they can be a lifeline for some patients, offering a means to sustain life and alleviate suffering, the decision to use them raises critical questions. Advocates argue for their selective use in specific conditions where they offer clear benefits, while challengers raise concerns about their uses. Thus, an understanding of when feeding tubes are appropriate becomes vital for necessary
In 1983, Elizabeth Bouvia expressed a desire to end her life through self-starvation at a Los Angeles County hospital. The physicians monitoring Elizabeth at the hospital had determined that she was not eating enough and her weight loss was a life-threatening condition. The staff and physicians at High Desert Hospital in Los Angeles County, California, inserted a nasogastric feeding tube into Elizabeth against her wishes in order to ensure proper nutrition. The staff at the hospital justified their actions through the state’s interest in persevering life as her prognosis indicated that she could survive an additional 15 years with adequate nutrition. Elizabeth sued the hospital