The court made the decision in the case of Terri Schiavo on behalf of the legal guardian/spouse’s request. According to ethical theories and what is ethical correct that may provide one with happiness, we cannot conclude that Terri Schiavo was happy in her permanent vegetative state and being dependent of nursing care can be very upsetting for the many patients. Also her family and friends were unhappy about her condition. Her case was not a simple coma, yet there was no cure for the permanent vegetative state. It may have been that Terri Schiavo would have expressed the desire to not live in such a manner to her spouse, however the absence of a living will makes this a difficult call. There was a lack in the quality of life for Terri Schiavo and pain experienced by family and friends. …show more content…
According to physicians in Mrs. Schiavo’s life she was unable to function as a normal human being, she was unable to make rational decisions, she had lost consciousness and she would never be able to reach happiness. Analysis of Duty Ethics: According to Immanuel Kant “Respecting the other as a person, a moral agent, a self determining autonomous human being” (Brannigan, PG 14) Mrs. Schiavo had requested not to be kept alive with artificial nutrition or hydration and it was her husband’s duty to fulfill her wishes. All these decisions caused a lot of emotions on Terry’s parents that wanted to keep there daughter alive because of their religious point of view. Ethical Analysis Utilitarian: Also this theory will agree with Mr. Schiavo to have feeding tube
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
Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest triggered by hypokalemia, which means that she had low levels of potassium in her blood. The cardiac arrest deprived oxygen of her brain and put her in a coma. Many doctors diagnosed her as a persistent vegetative state. Ever since she collapsed on February 25, 1990, she has been on a feeding tube until March 18, 2005.
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
CM Gilmore contacted Terri Mohn who, is a relative of Crystal Mohn. Terri provide the following:
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).
All were agreed on that and court found that she had s conversation with her roommate once that if she will be sick or injured in future, she would not prefer artificial nutritional treatment because she had passed a healthy life. But the Supreme Court denied this because of some laws. They told that no one can assume the choice of that person who is surviving.
The situation in which one can observed unethical behavior would be in a hospital facility, where the wife of a spouse would have the sole priority in the decision making process. Actually, this situation was a dilemma that had happened to the researcher family, where she felt that she was being deprived of her rights to know about her brother’s situation at the hospice care. His wife was in charge when his life started to deteriorate and eventually was put on life support. According to English, Romano-Critchley, and Sommerville (2001), examined the human rights to “moral and legal differences between non treatment and intentionally hastening death of patient” (p. 413) has been an ethical topic for the past few years. The studied have reported
The case of Terri Schiavo is a landmark case that involved a fifteen year battle over whether or not to provide life support for Terri Schiavo who was 26 years old when she collapsed in her bedroom in February of 1990. According to Munson (2012), Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael Schiavo, claimed to have woken to the sound of a thud at approximately four a.m. and found Terri unconscious on the floor. He called 911, but Terri had suffered cardiac arrest and by the time she was resuscitated she had suffered irreversible brain damage.
One day in January 1980 in Chicago Illinois, a women name Nancy Grace was driving excessively fast and lost control, the accident was relentless deadly accident. When the paramedics arrived, they were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat; she was then transported to the hospital, unconscious, 26 year old Nancy continued to be fed through a surgically implanted tube. After several years, “a court found that although her respiration and circulation continued unaided, she was unconscious to her surroundings except for reflexive responses to sound and perhaps painful stimuli, her brain had been degenerated and severely injured, irreversibly”(1996-2000 Chris Docker) she was a spastic quadriplegic; she suffered contraction of her four extremities, with irreversible muscle and tendon damage; she had no cognitive or reflex ability to swallow food or water or to maintain her essential daily needs nor would she ever recover such an ability. She lay in vegetative state even though she had told her housemate that, if sick, injured or extremely ill, she would not wish to continue her life and be a bother to anyone unless she could live “at least halfway normal”. This was the first time the United States Supreme Court had been faced with what we call the "right to die”( 2000 Chris Docker) or known yet as “Euthanasia”. They said that Missouri had "arrogated to itself" the power to define life, and Nancy’s life and liberty consequently was put into disturbing conflict. She had not
On February 28, 1990, twenty six-year old Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage when her heart stopped for five minutes. Terri's condition was the subject of intense debate and media scrutiny over the subject of euthanasia and guardianship. Given the circumstances of Terri's vegetated condition, and no physical proof of her wishes, the last word on whether or not Terri would stay alive was given to her husband Michael Schiavo, by the state of Florida. Michael's argument was that he was carrying out her wishes to not be kept alive in that state. Terri's family challenged Michael's claims saying she is responsive and in no discomfort, that her condition does not meet the medical definition of
Terri Shiavo died almost eleven years ago after her feeding tube was removed by the order of Florida judge. Shiavo, 41, had suffered from cardiac arrest in 1990 it caused a severe lack of oxygen and damage to the brain. She had basically spent half of her life in a vegetative state. A vegetative state is when the person can see and hear everything going on around them but cannot respond to any of it. It is kind of like being out of yourself and in two different places at one time. Her husband, Michael, requested that in 1995 she be taken off of life support and be allowed to die legally. He and
In the early months of 2005, Terri Schiavo’s life story, involving her persistent vegetative state (PVS) captured the worldwide spotlight and brought up controversial issues surrounding guardian care of the patient, as well as the overall decisions made by Congress. The government involvement in her case impeded any decisions the family and spouse could properly address for the well being of Schiavo (Montero 166). The governmental court system in Terri Schiavo’s case behaved immorally in regard to the eventual removal of her feeding tube.
In 1976, the landmark case of Karen Quinlan established the right to refuse medical care on the basis of the right to privacy (McGowen, 2011, p. 64). Karen Quinlan’s parents requested that their 21 year old daughter be removed from mechanical ventilation after she was deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state after mixing a strict diet, drugs, and alcohol. The physician refused to remove life sustaining treatment despite Karen’s persistent vegetative state, as she did not meet the criteria for brain death. The case was appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court where
Case 1: I believe this case is morally permissible because the woman clearly believed her quality of life was not good and she no longer wanted to live. There is no reason to believe that she was not in a correct state of mind making this decision and therefore, her decision to die is morally permissible. Some might argue that even though her quality of life is not good, it is still a life and although that is true, the decision is not theirs to make. I believe that everyone has a right to choose when they want to die if they truly are in so much pain and feel that being alive is not beneficial to themselves. Others might argue that the way she was granted the right to die is immoral, i.e. being denied food and medication. At first, I thought