Introduction of the Terri Schiavo case
Theresa Maria Schindler Schiavo is the subject of a court dispute regarding her rights and guardianship (1963-2005). She was taken to the hospital and suffered damage in 1990 when she collapsed owing to heart failure caused by a potassium imbalance. Additionally, she suffered extended damage to her brain due to a lack of oxygen, which led to her hospitalization. In 1998, her guardian and her husband took her case to court in Florida, arguing that she did not want to remain in a vegetative state and should have her feeding tube removed (Perry et al., 2005). The court granted their request. Her parents did not accept that she was in that state since they did not believe she was there. Her parents filed a lawsuit against the guardian, Michael Schiavo, to have him removed from his role as guardian.
In 2000, the judge sided with Schiavo and ordered the tube to be withdrawn. However, in 2002, the Schindlers prevailed in their lawsuit in a different court, and the judge decided in their favor. This resulted in the tube being reinserted. The first judge found against Schindlers in 2002, and the Florida Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict in 2003, which resulted in the removal of the tube. Again, in 2002, the first judge ruled against Schindlers. The Florida legislature enacted the law that allowed Governor Jeb Bush to intercede and order the feeding to be resumed after he had ordered it to be stopped (Mathes, 2005). After this, in 2003, a judgment was made that determined Terri’s Law was illegal because it violated Terri Schiavo’s right to privacy and was unconstitutional.
Ethical issues in the Terri Schiavo case
The conflict between those who value freedom and those who place a higher value on human life is the most significant ethical issue in this case (Perry et al., 2005). In the course of the medical history of the United States, several decades’ worth of time has been spent respecting the stance that people have the right to choose whether or not to continue receiving medical treatment, even if doing so will result in death. This has been the most difficult battle in terms of ethics. When medical professionals step into the role of the surrogate and administer medication to a patient in need, the rule of twofold effect is triggered. They concluded that the feeding tube should be removed in this particular instance. They did this with the understanding that it could speed up the end of their lives.
Five Stakeholders in the Terri Schiavo Case
- The Schindlers’ behavior became immoral and unethical when they accused Michael Schiavo of abusing and neglecting their daughter, although Michael had tried all possible to assist the Schiavos’ daughter.
- Jeb Bush, who was serving as Governor of Florida at the time that Terri’s Law was enacted, made letting the media cover this issue an ethical move.
- The news media contributed to and served as a source for the current lack of euthanasia legislation.
- The legislature passed the bill that permitted assisted suicide.
- The government is a consistent stakeholder when it comes to euthanasia law.
Ethical dilemma
There is a moral dilemma for taxpayers who are curious about using the money they have contributed. The demonstrations that have been going on for the past quarter of a century have received coverage from the police and the media, and a significant amount of money has been spent. Terri’s case involved many medical bills that were utilized for more than 25 years (Mathes, 2005). When this happens, the private insurance runs out, and then they turn to public insurance for help. This is the money utilized for a patient who decided in the year 1990 to forego a procedure that would have lengthened their life.
Recent case
Bobbi Kristina’s case, which involved her renowned family, argued and fought in public; it was not unlike Terri’s case. On the 31st of January, she was discovered inside the bathtub in which she had been hiding. It would appear that the Schiavo family did not learn anything from the experience of the Schiavo lawsuit and that they are allowing the personal and political repercussions of the moment to affect them. The event is taking place after ten years, and they are still arguing about permanently being in a vegetative condition, being in a coma, and having died of brain damage (Fins, 2009). Since Kristina’s parents chose not to have her die in a hospital following her elective surgery, her body is still being kept alive through artificial methods. It is important to believe the decisions made by hospitals, doctors, and nursing homes when it comes to turning off artificial life support if you want to perform a good decision-making process.
Another connection between the two cases is that both involve young women in a comatose state for an extended period before their deaths. After finding Bobbi Kristina unresponsive in a bathtub at her house, doctors decided to induce a coma. She had been placed there by her mother, who was concerned about her behavior and erratic behavior. However, when she was taken off life support, it caused severe brain damage and eventually left her in a vegetative state (Perry et al., 2005). In contrast, Schiavo had no significant brain damage after being placed on life support. It seems that Bobbi Kristina’s case is more similar to Schiavo’s than it is to Schiavo’s case because both women suffered from similar conditions that led to their untimely deaths.
Bobbi Kristina’s case has been impacted by Schiavo’s case in several ways. First, it is important to remember that Bobbi Kristina was a victim of an eating disorder. She was not just sick, but she was also struggling with an illness, and this is something that can make recovery difficult. In addition, when a person has a loved one who suffers from an illness and then has their life taken away from them due to their illness, it can be incredibly difficult to know what to do. The family of Bobbi Kristina seemed to be unable to find any answers as to why this happened or whether it could happen again, so they were left with no option but to wait for justice.
Lessons from Terri Schiavo’s Case
I learned a lot about the Terri Schiavo case, especially how it made people think about their beliefs and what they would do in similar situations. The media and public opinion seem very divided on this issue. Some people think she is not ‘living’ enough, while others say she is still alive and deserves her right to choose how she wants to live (Fins, 2009). Some people even think she should be allowed to die because her brain is no longer functioning properly, and she does not want to eat anymore.
I also learned that there were some issues with communication between doctors and family members during this case. Some doctors did not want to give an opinion on how Terri would respond if she regained consciousness after being kept alive on life support systems for 15 years without any brain activity. There were also questions about whether or not Terri would be able to live independently after being kept alive by machines for such a long time without having any brain activity at all.
The case has had a significant impact on how one thinks about advanced directives, especially when it comes to public health issues. In this case, the courts decided that a person’s best interests are not necessarily what others care about and that people have a right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies without interference from others. This has led many people to believe that advanced directives should not be used in situations where someone’s life is at stake. However, there are still many situations where advanced directives can be beneficial. For example, suppose one cannot speak for themselves due to illness or disability. In that case, an advance directive can help ensure that their wishes will be followed by healthcare providers when they cannot communicate with you directly themselves.
Conclusion
In the case of an incompetent person who has not given advance instructions, there are no guidelines for when to terminate treatment. Given that they do not have access to the patient’s intentions, proxies or family members cannot make the best decisions on their behalf. A spouse’s final say on such matters is usually required. If a person’s health declines to the point where they cannot communicate, or if they are otherwise isolated from the rest of society, they must have conversations with their loved ones, both young and old, about their final desires and the end of their lives. The number of situations like Terri Schiavo’s will become far rarer due to this. Regarding Schiavo’s situation, there is a need for better knowledge of vegetative states, brain function, and discussions of death.
References
Fins, J. (2009). Brain injury: the vegetative and minimally conscious. Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, Bioethics Briefing Book.
Mathes, M. (2005). Terri Schiavo and end-of-life decisions: Can law help us out? MEDSURG Nursing. 41(3), 200-202.
Perry, J., Chruchill, L. R. & Kirshner, H.S. (2005). The Terri Schiavo case: Legal, ethical, and medical perspectives Links to an external site. Annals of Internal Medicine. 143(10), 744-748. Web.
