I have chosen to discuss the case of Terri Shiavo which was a very big ethical case back in 2005. She had been left on a ventilator for 15 years. So let’s start from the beginning. On February 25, 1990 Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest that was causes by extreme hypokalemia (low potassium) brought on by an eating disorder (Quill, 2005). As a result of this cardiac arrest Terri developed severe hypoxic – ischemic encephalopathy which is another way of saying lack of oxygen to the brain (Quill, 2005). During this period she exhibited no evidence of brain function and eventually scans of her brain showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres (Quill, 2005). Her electroencephalograms were fat, indicating no functional activity of the …show more content…
Schiavo accepted the doctors diagnosis of persistent vegetative and decided he wanted to remove her from the ventilator (Quill, 2005). The article says he was recalling prior statements that his wife had made, such as “I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine” (Quill, 2005). This is the part where things get tricky. Terri’s parents (the Schindler family) disagreed and did not accept the diagnosis, they believed that Ms. Schiavo’s condition would improve if they continued to provide rehabilitative treatment (citation).
The fight between Mr. Schiavo and the Schindler family began in 1993 which is three years after Terri’s diagnoses. The fight continued between the parents and husband, Terri’s feeding tube was removed in 2001, put back in, removed again in 2003 and a third time on March 18, 2005 (Quill, 2005). Congress then passed an “emergency measure” that was signed by the president in an effort to force federal courts to review this case and create a legal mandate for her feeding tube to be reinserted yet again (Quill, 2005). The district court of Florida denied the emergency request and this decision was upheld on appeal, multiple appeals were denied and Ms. Schiavo died March 31, 2005 (Quill, 2005). Therefore, Terri was on a ventilator in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years.
Let’s break down this case based on the four principles of our textbook. We will
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
In the Schiavo case she had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder, this ended up causing her to be in a PVS. She had no say in her care or her dying. Unable to speak and leaving no written orders or thoughts on how she would want to deal with a situation like this it was left up to the family. Eventually it was decided to stop her tube feedings and hydration.
Over the course of her illness, the doctors called us to the family meeting about a half dozen times. Each time we refused, and she improved enjoying another 6 to 8 months before a crisis. I am sure that if she were totally vegetative, that we would have reluctantly let her go, but her time had not come.
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
CNN aricle entiled "Brain-dead Texas woman" tals about Marlise who was put on life support yet her family wanted the doctors to disconnet her due that she was legally dead. This is a different story from other where
After declaring Jahi McMath brain dead, the doctors at the Children’s Hospital ordered her to be taken off mechanical ventilation. Her mother, Latasha Winkfield, refused to accept that her daughter was dead and incapable of recovering (du Toit & Miller, 2016). Winkfield believed her daughter was still alive because McMath was breathing and her heart was still beating (du Toit & Miller, 2016). McMath’s family disagreed with the doctors’ report and filed a lawsuit to prevent life support from being discontinued (Paola, 2014).
They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their
Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with
In Taylor’s case, a few things could have been done differently. One of the doctors who cared for Taylor really wanted her parents to choose to keep fighting but was very cold towards them and they would have been more ready to hear her side if she hadn’t treated them the way she did. Between pages 94 and 95 of First, Do No Harm, the parents try discussing at what point they should think about turning the respirator off to which she replied, “…Under Texas law there are requirements for removal of life support, and they don’t apply here.” If her parent’s chose to keep her on support, I presume Taylor would have passed all the same but it would have taken a lot longer and kept her parents in their estranged state until so.
Professionals in every field are always confronted with some kind of ethical issues. It has however been noted that these ethical issues become high in magnitude and extent when public officials are involved. Due to the involvement of human life, an industry like healthcare holds ethics in highest regard. Even though these healthcare practitioners are highly trained to deal with issues of these kinds, their decisions can sometimes have a lasting impact on their professional and personal lives (Edwards 2009).
Everyday, healthcare professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas in their workplace. These ethical dilemmas need to be addressed in order to provide the best care for the patient. Healthcare professionals have to weigh their own personal beliefs, professional beliefs, ethical understandings, and several other factors to decide what the best care for their patient might be. This is illustrated in Mrs. Smith’s case. Mrs. Smith is an 85 year old who has suffered from a large stroke that extends to both of her brains hemispheres which has left her unconscious. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for support. She is unable to communicate how she wishes to proceed with her healthcare. Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank have different views regarding their mother’s plan of care. The decision that needs to be made is whether to prolong Mrs. Smith’s life, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank feels his mother would want. In the healthcare field, there are situations similar to this case that happen daily where moral and ethical judgment is necessary to guide the decision that would be best for the patient. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss, compare and contrast the personal and professional values, ethical principles, and legal issues regarding Mrs. Smith’s quality of life and further plan of care.
As an administrator I would need to take into consideration the patient’s autonomy, autonomy is recognizing an individual’s right to make his/her own decisions about what is best for them regarding their health care (Pozgar, 2012). The patient’s rights always should be considered before any decisions are made by any other family members. In this scenario it is clear that the patient is unable to make any decisions, the patient has suffered a serious brain damage, and although it is not complete brain death, we must determine how to proceed.
Shouldn’t the parents have asked if what Andrea is experiencing is, in fact, absolutely terrible, before they decided that active euthanasia is best option for her (autonomy)? Just because she cannot be a moral agent that does not mean that her wishes and concerns are not important. With support from parents and health care team, the nine-year-old girl would definitely be able to express how she feels and what she would like to do. The two moral agents, the parents and the physician, seemed to have forgotten that the decision they are making was for Andrea.
Healthcare professionals will be faced with ethical dilemmas throughout their career, particularly in the hospital environment. Having an education regarding professional healthcare ethics will provide some direction in how to best address these dilemmas at a time when either the patient or their family is in need of making decisions for themselves or their family member. It can be difficult for healthcare professionals to weigh professional protocol against their own personal beliefs and ethical understandings when determining critical care for their patient.
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