Terris Schiavo’s Case: Bioethical Issues

Introduction

Terris Schiavo’s case gained public attention in 2005, challenging the medical ethics society about decision-making on life and death. The case challenged the morality and appropriateness of the justice system during the end of life without an advanced directive from the patient. Terri’s case involved the parents of Ms. Schiavo, her husband, Michael, and the legal sector. Terri, 26 years old, collapsed at her home in February 1990 and was rushed to the hospital, where medical professionals diagnosed her with cardiac arrest (The New York Times, 2014). Efforts to resuscitate Terri failed, leading to insufficient oxygen flow to the brain, which left her in a persistent vegetative state.

In 1998, Michael petitioned the 6th Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, to disconnect Terri from life support since he was her husband and guardian. He claimed that Terri had previously told him she would never wish to be on life support if her state was irreversible. However, her parents opposed the idea arguing that Terri was conscious and would wish to continue living. The case was ruled in Michael’s favor arguing that Terri’s condition was irreversible since she was in a persistent vegetative state. Terri was withdrawn from life support depriving her nutrition and hydration in 2001, which lasted for two days, after which it was reconnected following opposition from the parents (The New York Times, 2014). Terri’s life support was finally removed in 2005 after numerous court hearings where the court held Michael’s plea. She died at 41 on March 18, 2005, after spending fifteen years in a persistent vegetative state.

Bioethical Analysis

Bioethical issues in the Terris case include the autonomous principle based on self-determination and the right to life for patients with a terminal illness. Qualified patients with irreversible and terminal illnesses can decide on treatment options and how to die at the end of life. If a patient cannot decide, a legal representative or guardian can express the patient’s last wishes regarding their treatment and end-of-life options (Nora, 2020). In Terri’s case, her husband was the guardian who expressed her previous wish that she would never want to stay on life support if she had a terminal illness.

According to Michael, disconnecting Terri from nutrition and hydration was in her best interest since it ensured the end of her life while preserving her dignity. On the other hand, Terri’s parents opposed the decision arguing that life support helped in preserving Terri’s life and quality of life until her death. Both parties had Terri’s interest in mind, but Michael, acting as her guardian, had the right to decide her destiny based on her last wish. Regardless, there was no evidence backing up the decision since Terri did not have an advanced legal directive stating her wishes during the end of her life (Henry, 2020). The court ruling in favor of Michael’s decision brought controversy due to respect for life and deciding on her behalf despite insufficient evidence justifying her wish for the end of life, which has become a topic of debate to date.

Conclusion

From the case facts, Terri’s condition was irreversible without a chance of survival or withdrawal from the persistent vegetative state. Terri’s case posed complex and contradictory views since her wish during the end-of-life was unclear. Medical professionals had to decide based on court rulings since the parents opposed the guardian’s decisions. For example, Michael’s statement did not influence them, and they waited for the court’s ruling to act. Terri’s state was irreversible, and keeping her alive through artificial nutrition and hydration could not improve her quality of life or resuscitate her to normal health. However, medical professionals reconnected Terri’s life support machine after the first attempt to end her life to fulfill the legal and ethical obligations of preserving life and end-of-life care (Henry, 2020). Ultimately, the medical professionals supported Michael’s decision to disconnect Terri from life support, leading to her death.

References

Henry, B. (2020). End of life feeding: Ethical and legal considerations. Physiology & Behavior, 217, 112800. Web.

The New York Times. (2014). Terri Schiavo documentary: The case’s enduring legacy | retro report | The New York Times [YouTube]. Web.

Nora, G. J. (2020). Disorders of consciousness: Terminology and prognosis. Ethics & Medics, 45(12), 1–20. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

NursingBird. (2024, July 1). Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues. https://nursingbird.com/terris-schiavos-case-bioethical-issues/

Work Cited

"Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues." NursingBird, 1 July 2024, nursingbird.com/terris-schiavos-case-bioethical-issues/.

References

NursingBird. (2024) 'Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues'. 1 July.

References

NursingBird. 2024. "Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues." July 1, 2024. https://nursingbird.com/terris-schiavos-case-bioethical-issues/.

1. NursingBird. "Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues." July 1, 2024. https://nursingbird.com/terris-schiavos-case-bioethical-issues/.


Bibliography


NursingBird. "Terris Schiavo's Case: Bioethical Issues." July 1, 2024. https://nursingbird.com/terris-schiavos-case-bioethical-issues/.