Michael Schiavo Persuasive Essay

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 CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 497 U.S. 261 (1990) case that was presented to the Supreme Court in 1990 was about a woman named Nancy Beth Cruzan and her right to die. The According to thesciencewritinblog.com, “On January 11, 1983 Nancy Beth Cruzan’s car overturned when she was driving home from her job at a cheese factory. She was found face down in a ditch, and although paramedics restarted her heart, 15 minutes without oxygen left her with severe brain damage (Science and Law).” Cruzan stayed in a diligent vegetative state in which she showed no intellectual capacity, yet had reflexes after waking up from her 3 week coma. Cruzan parents wanted take off life support but the hospital refused to do so without a court order because there was no living will so there was no evidence to support that Nancy would have wanted that for herself.

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

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).

Without a living will Terri Schiavo, an individual who collapsed and was unable to communicate her final scenario of how she preferred to end her life or pursue an alternative given her circumstances, commenced a highly complex legal discussion within the U.S court system. Being incapable of conveying her end of life issues and neglecting to appoint a health care power of attorney proceeding her condition, Schiavo's family did not know what her wishes were. With conflicting notions from the medical, judicial, as well as personal dispositions, Schiavo's case and her life were in the hand of morally conflicted others (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-Fields, 2011, Jennings, 2010).

The recommendation I am suggesting would include a singed “Do Not Resuscitate-DNR” agreement from Margie Whitson. Her legal guardian notified of her request and Hospice be contacted. This would be in leu of a possible health issues that would arise in the future. And with this in place, her wishes can be granted. Margie Whitson has lived a long full filled life and all of her family is deceased. She has come to terms with all the setbacks in her life and now wishes to just stop her suffering.

Does a written document such as a living will decide when someone should die or should the verbal wishes of the incapacitated person be followed if known? Such as the controversy over when life begins, we now face the ultimate question of when does life end. In 1990, Terri Schiavo, a young Florida woman suffered a heart attack caused by bulimia leaving her brain without oxygen for six minutes. According to medical opinions, she has limited involuntary physical movement. She has remained in a persistent vegetative state ever since. Terri did not have a living will or medical directive in place at the time of her heart attack.

The Terri Schaivo case made headline news as her husband and parents fought a battle over Terri’s right to live or die. In 1990, 26-year-old Terri Schaivo was found in her home unconscious and without oxygen to her brain for several minutes, which left Terri in a vegetative state. According to a Schiavo timeline on the Miami University website, “Ms. Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, apparently caused by a potassium imbalance and leading to brain damage due to lack of oxygen.” (Cerminara & Goodman, 2003).

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

Her heart stopped suddenly and by the time she was resuscitated, she suffered irreversible brain damage. She was in a vegetative state which means that she was awake but without conscious and no sign of awareness. She was kept alive by costly medical treatments and care including tubes injected for food and water for years. The doctors said that there was no chance of significant improvement. The question that came up was if Terri wanted to be kept alive in these circumstances and if she would have chosen death instead of suffering this way for years and the years to come. Her husband wanted her to be let go while her parents wanted her to remain alive despite there being no chance of improvement. This is a clear example of the utilitarian theory that shows many parties involved. It is clear that everyone will suffer, but if we put ourselves in Terri’s shoes, she is the one suffering the most. In order to reach the most good out of the situation, it would be best if the doctors remove the feeding tube ending the financial and emotional strain. Though it will be tough for the family, the most good for the family is to know that Terri is no longer suffering. It was unfortunate that this situation happened in the public eye when the courts got involved. The judge did rule to remove her feeding tube, but is there a breaking a point of when the law should play in such a sensitive

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

It is very important that each individual, if possible has a say in his or her own dying and death. Facing death is hard for everyone and there are specific issues to be talked about in advance. A living will or a Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) is extremely useful. The POLST is designed for people with serious or life-threatening illnesses. “This is a standardized form that describes a patient’s wishes and is signed by his or her physician, providing both summary of an individual’s advance directive decision and the physician’s order. It can be used to inform emergency personnel about a patient’s wishes for life sustaining procedures, such as CPR. “

Throughout the history of the entire world, things have constantly been changing. Societies have been created and flourished, humans evolved, new technologies have been created, and new theories discovered. However, with so many advancements in the human world, there are some things that cannot be stopped from happening or change. Organisms can get an illness at any moment in their lives from many different causes. Some illnesses cannot be cured, can cause unbearable symptoms or pain, and can cause you to lose your life, such as cancer. If a person is terminally ill, their illness will be the cause of their death no matter how much treatment is received.

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

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