Essay on The Terri Schiavo’s Case Analysis

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

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).

Michael Schiavo believes that his wife is being made to suffer, and that her present status has robbed her of any remaining dignity. Terri’s parents believe that their daughter has been denied the opportunity to recover, and that with treatment she can enjoy a reasonable quality of life. The legal battle continues today with doctors disagreeing about Terri’s medical status, prospects for recovery and appropriate interventions. In the meantime, Terri remains attached to a feeding tube, spending her life in a medical institution totally incapacitated and unable to participate in the decisions concerning her very life.

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.

On February 25, 1990, the case of Terri Schiavo began, beginning a court battle between her new husband and her parents. Questions about the right to live, her wishes, and quality vs quantity of life were a few of the issues that were trying to be answered. According to ABC news Terri Schiavo collapsed in her house on February 25, 1990 from what doctors believed was from a potassium imbalance. She collapsed in her home, her heart stopped beating, and her brain went without oxygen leaving her in a coma after resuscitation.(ABC News, 2006) Her husband took her to California for an experimental rain stimulator treatment but it was unsuccessful leaving Terri in a permanent vegetative state.

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

We as parents have to be careful when our kids get married as they talk about life changes. What we do not know about but when it come on life and die situation for us to say goodbye to our kids. I would love to live on to my kids then bury me in for the how to bury one of my kids it is hard so all parents need to know what is decision their kids make when they get married about darn life in a Emergency such as brain dead, vegetable state do they have healthcare proxy it is important and all of this must be discussed between parent spouse it is important .this case are real I know it is important , did Terri Schiavo have a healthcare proxy are it was the world of the husband are it was the Senate to make money to move on with life with his

This week was I was relaxed and nervous. I was relaxed because I am done with my individual assignment, and nervous because we have presentation. I think group member before us as set the presentation standards high, and we as a group need to at least try to match the level. Other than reading and working on the presentation I had two case studies, 9 discussions board posting to finish. I am poor public speaker, I get extra nervous to talk in front of the class. Hope I can manage to talk for two minutes, and explained what I read and research on my topic.

The practically speaking, the case of Nancy Cruzan highlights the fact that an individual cannot rely only on telling his would be decision maker what type of care is desired should that individual become incompetent. Such evidence may not be viewed as sufficient to refuse medical treatment as happened with Nancy Cruzan. It thereby becomes important to record exactly what type of treatment should be accepted or refused if one’s decision making capacity is lost. The most common way to do this is in the form of an advance directive. Such a document would declare not only who the patient wants a surrogate decision maker, but also relates the degree of treatment desired by the patient. The presence of an advance directive makes caring for incompetent patients much easier because confusion over the patient’s wishes is avoided. Had Nancy Cruzan made an advance directive, withdrawing the artificial nutrition

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

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

The concept of who had the best interest for Terri’s future became a nasty situation in that it rested on conflicting hearsay arguments of separate personal conversations that were between both parties. Michael saw that there was no chance of recovery for the initial five years, along with being repeatedly told by multiple doctors who had worked intensely to regain her consciousness. One can even infer that her grim prognosis during this five year period, even motivated him to become a certified respiratory therapist. This ultimately granted him enough proof to the courts that his intentions were indeed authentic. However, the interaction between Michael and Terri’s parents tried to be mediated by qualified physicians on numerous occasions

In my opinion, I believe that the family members should all agree with what is right for the dying person but sometimes that doesn’t play out right. So if the person is married, their partner should make the decision, but if the person isn’t married the parents should. So in the case of Terri’s, both of the sides were on different pages of ending Terri life. The medical doctors should have asked what the husband thought was the right thing to do and the decision was to end Terri life. It mentions in the case that patients that are in a PVS are not likely to recover. So why have someone’s body alive, but the person is no longer with us, we are the only ones that are suffering. I don’t believe the legislature should vouch for someone’s life the reason is because they didn’t know the person as well like close family members.

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 brain hemispheres which has left her unconscious and unable to make medical decisions for herself. She only has some brain stem reflexes and requires a ventilator for life support. Mrs. Smith did not set up an advanced directive, which is defined by Miracle (2011) “mechanism by which individuals make known how they want medical treatment decisions made when they can no longer make them for themselves” (p.229). Without an advanced directive, medical decisions will fall to Mrs. Smith’s children, Sara and Frank. Each of which 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 with continued medical intervention, as Sara would like to do, or stop all treatments and care, as Frank

However, there are documented reports of her reacting to family members. Her husband wanted to withdraw her feeding tube so she could die “peacefully” but her parents wanted to keep providing medical treatment and care to their daughter. While Terri was considered to have brain damage and was in a wheelchair, she was able to breathe on her own and maintain the functions needed for survival (ie blood pressure, heartbeat, kidney function, etc.). To her parents, she was their daughter and deserved the necessary physical, occupational and speech therapy to help her reach maximum recovery. Her husband thought otherwise. He considered her a vegetable. He wanted the feeding tube removed so she could die. The saddest part about Terri Schiavo’s case is her parents were willing to take care of her but because her husband was next of kin, and Terri didn’t have a living will, all decisions were made by her husband. His decision was to remove the tube and sadly, Terri was starved to death. She died two weeks after her feeding tube was removed. Should she have died? Absolutely not, especially with her parents and siblings more than willing to assume all responsibility of her care.