Terri Schiavo´s Life Story

In 1983 Elizabeth Bouvia, who was a 26-year-old quadriplegic who was affected by cerebral palsy, entered a hospital in Riverside, California wishing to starve herself to death. Elizabeth Bouvia suffered from cerebral palsy and severe arthritis causing her to be in chronic pain and close to being completely paralyzed. Bouvia was only able to make movement in some fingers on her right hand and make a few facial movements. Elizabeth Bouvia was unable to sit up and could only lay flat causing her to be confined to her bed, and further causing her to depend on others for even the simplest of tasks. Bouvia relied on others to feed her, bathe her, and help her defecate. Bouvia had no one in her life able to care for her around the clock like she needed, so out of options Bouvia entered Riverside General Hospital.

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

After 3 years of hoping Nancy would get better the Cruzan family decided that taking Nancy of the feeding and hydration tube is what Nancy would have wanted and what they thought was best. However the Cruzan's request was refused by the Missouri Department of Health. They believed they needed clear and convincing evidence that taking their daughter of the feeding and hydration tube is what Nancy would have really wanted. The Cruzans disagreed they thought that as her legal guardians they would speak for the decision she can not physically make. The Cruzans then took this to local court, but the case did not stop their. It made its way to the Supreme Court and became known as Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health. Final outcome of the case was 5-4 in favor of the Missouri Department of Health. "The Court felt that the Cruzan case was best explored in the area of 'liberty' rather than 'privacy.' The Supreme Court upheld the authority of States to demand “clear and convincing” evidence of the injured person's wishes."(Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from

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 year of 1990 of February, Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and oxygen was cut from her brain for just very few minutes. Terri’s husband Michael Schiavo, claims it was cardiac arrest induced by a potassium imbalance associated with bulimia. Not one person knew that Terri had been bulimic. She was very on top with what she ate due to her being bigger in high school, and her husband Michael making comments stating “If you get fat, I’ll divorce you”. Michael denied stating that. Some believe that Michael could have tried to strangle Terri because of a testimony made in court by a neurologist associated when Terri was emitted to the hospital claiming “she had suffered a neck injury”. Terri’s brain was severely damaged,

Hello all, my name is David Jamison, MHA. I am representing Marion General Hospital as the committee chairman of the ethics committee. I am currently reviewing the case involving female patient Margie Whitson. The patient is a 95 year old patient whom wishes to have her pace maker “turned off”, due to her unwillingness to live. The death of her only remaining son was the last event that, that had forced her to contemplate the reason why she still lives. Mrs. Margie Whitson is no stranger to loss. When she was younger, she lost her youngest son to a severe motor vehicle accident that took his life at the early age of 30. She injured herself over 10 years ago, and received a hip fracture. Her most recently bout was

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

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

The story of Nancy Cruzan is a story that may be extremely controversial regarding what is right versus what is wrong, although this woman has changed both the world of medicine and legality since her death in 1990. Cruzan experienced a tragic car accident and was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state by physicians. The controversial part of the story is in regards to whether she should have a tube feeding continued or if it should be discontinued. The purpose of this paper is to further explore Cruzan’s background story, how protestors affected her case, ethical principles, how healthcare has been affected, the meaning of her gravestone, and the impact on her family.

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).

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

The dilemma for ethics committees brought up by the story of Patrick is a question of how much is too much. As technologies in the medical field continue to advance, people can live substantially longer lives, but are they lives worth living? Some people, like Patrick, don’t think being paralyzed is a quality of life worth living. Others, like Armando, refuse to be made DNR and cling to life even if it consists of communicating by blinking of the eye. The questions raised in this book are awful decisions that nobody should ever have to make. Whatever the committees and doctors choose to do can keep patients alive and allow them to have a low quality of live, be in constant pain and be a burden to society, or keep a terminally ill patient comfortable until he or she has said their good-byes and let nature take its course.

In the article, “A Life or Death Situation,” the author Robin Marantz Henig documents Margaret “Peggy” Battin’s struggle as she attempts to balance her academic beliefs with her desire to hold onto her husband, Brooke Hopkins. The article focuses on Battin, a bioethicist at the University of Utah, who has always been an advocate of allowing dying patients to decide whether they wish to continue treatments to prolong their lives. Battin believes that the chronically ill and suffering should be able to choose to end their lives. She spent decades writing about assisted suicide, euthanasia, and death with dignity. However, on November 14, 2008, her views changed since the bike accident left her husband, Brooke Hopkins, paralyzed from the neck

In the bioethical case study, there is a 78-year old lady named Ms. Long. A public guardian has to make a major decision in regards to making healthcare decisions during her end of life stages. There are multiple conditions Ms. Long faces daily leading health care professionals to believe she is in her final stages of life. Ms. Long has been hospitalized for 4 months and recently transferred to a nursing home. During Ms. Long stay in the hospital, she has been diagnosed with severe dementia, diabetes with impaired vision, poor kidney function, recent recurrent pneumonia, and prior strokes.

Though ethics committees have been helpful, scores of physician-patient disagreements end up in the U.S. court system with inconsistent results. The states adopted individual “statutes regulating DNR orders and their provisions vary in analysis throughout the U.S.” (Bishop, Brothers, Perry & Ahmad, 2010). One ethical dilemma that is constant in emergency rooms, the intensive care unit and terminally ill persons is a futility of treatment. In the case of CPR/DNR, New York State wanted to enact a law that describes the decisive responsibilities of the patient, and the family or surrogate, and physician. “In April 2003, the New-York Attorney General asserted that the DNR law would require a physician to obtain a consent of the patient’s health care surrogate before entering a DNR order, even when the physician