The first time the case went to court was to resolve the dispute over her neurologic devastation and how her parents and her husband were interpreting her wishes regarding life support. The courts ruled in her husband’s favor, that Terri would not want continued life support and the decision was made to withdraw life sustaining treatment. Her parents appealed the decision to remove treatment and won, because their physicians stated that Terri was not in a permanent vegetative state. Her husband and parents again went to court regarding PVS, and once again her husband was granted the right to remove…
Case Facts: Michael and Theresa Schiavo married on November 10, 1984. They were in a happy relationship and had no children. However on February 25, 1990, Theresa Schiavo had a cardiac arrest from potassium imbalance and hasn’t gained consciousness since. Her life was dependent on feeding tubes and constant care. Throughout the years, Michael maintained a good relationship with Theresa’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler. However their relationship ended when they stopped talking in 1993. On May 1998, Michael requested the guardianship court to allow him to end the life-prolonging procedures that had kept Theresa alive. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler opposed the petition and went through…
Who has the right to kill another? In the case of Terri Schiavo this was the debate. Who was it to say that she was in a vegetative state and could never go back to the way she was again? Wasn’t there still a chance that she could make a recovery? Her feeding tube kept her alive, and she could’ve lived much longer with it. But what if it wasn’t the way she wanted it or she wasn’t happy? Her husband began giving up, but her parents wanted to keep fighting. Who is it to say if she will stay or go?…
It troubled him that the Judge Teel described Nancy’s condition as “unresponsive and hopeless” with “no cognitive purpose for her except sound and perhaps pain.” If Nancy feels pain then she is not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). We did not know what was going on behind the scenes, but later it would all come to light. Our case bypassed the appellate court of Missouri and headed straight to the Missouri Supreme Court, with a little assistance. Our case was scheduled for review in September, along with a case that has opposite opinions as ours. In other words, the parents of a young man named Phillip Radar, that was diagnosed as being brain dead, did not want to let their child go, but the hospital caring for him did. Phillip’s heart was beating even though he was brain dead. Both of the cases were scheduled to be heard on the same morning in September, but on August 31st Phillip’s heart stopped and the effort to revive him was unsuccessful. His death left our case as the only one to be…
The story of Terri Schiavo brought to the surface so many ethical dilemma that as healthy people we take for granted. The issue if advance directive became a bone of contention between a husband and the parents of his wife. Terri Schiavo was taken to the hospital after she collapsed on February 25, 1990, and she lost consciousness. She was without a pulse and was not breathing, the paramedics attempted resuscitation. She was taken to Humana Hospital where she was eventually was resuscitated. It was later diagnosed that she had a cardiac arrest with massive brain damage due to lack of oxygen. The cardiac arrest, it was discovered had been triggered by extreme hypokalemia. This was linked to her eating disorder which caused the potassium level to be 2.0. The normal range is 3.5 to 5.0/mEq/L (Pagana & Pagana, 2002, p. 372). One of the major consequences of hypokalemia, can be heart rhythm abnormalities. As a result, Terri suffered severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and as time went on she showed no evidence of higher cortical function. Computed tomographic (CT) scans showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms (ECG) were flat, indicating no functional activity of her cerebral cortex (Quill, 2005, p. 1630). Terri had periods of wakefulness alternating with…
After nine years, when cruzans lost all their hope for the recovery of Nancy, they asked the director of the Missouri Rehabilitation center to remove the feeding and hydration tube, so Nancy could die. The director refused to do so, because at this time, the law in the state of Missouri did not allow for the removal of life support for a patient who legally could not speak or care for himself ---unless there was “clear and convincing evidence” that this is what the patient wanted. The issue of this case was whether the State of Missouri had the right to require "clear and convincing evidence" in order for the Cruzans to remove their daughter from life support.…
A neurological specialist appointed by the court, two selected by Michael Schiavo, and one chosen by the Schindler’s examined Terri for determination of PVS and chance of recovery. Based on the testimonies of all parties and evidence presented in both cases the court decision was that she was in PVS and to cease life support due to her very low chance of recovery from her…
The Terri Schiavo case was about respecting the choices each of us makes in how we want to live and die in a dignified way. Whether or not a people believes and agrees or disagrees with the outcome of the Terri Schiavo case. Terri’s husband met the legal requirements to let the care of his wife come to an end and her life with it (“From a legal perspective, should Terri Schiavo feeding tube have been removed? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org,” 2008).…
"The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally…
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 "vegetative," and that she would not wish to die. Although she never wrote a living will expressing a wish to refuse nutrition or medical treatment if disabled, her condition and future life span should have been her family's decision rather then her husbands. Despite of Michael's intentions, the method of starvation as a means of relieving her of her pains and suffering can still be seen as down right unethical as it is immoral. Terri suffered a legal and public murder. Though Mr. Michael Schiavo's intention and objective were presented as selfless, the government had failed to look into other mitigating reasons for his choice.…
The Terri Schiavo case is very disturbing to me. I understand a family choosing to remove life support when someone is determined to be brain-dead but removing a feeding tube seems like a whole different issue. Essentially, a person is being starved to death. I realize that Terri Schiavo was basically in a vegetative state, but it still seems like a harsh thing to do. I have mixed feelings on this topic in general. I can’t even begin to imagine how her parents felt, especially since they were opposed to the feeding tube being removed.…
How can it be that medicine, ethics, law, and family could work so poorly together in meeting the needs of this woman who was left in a persistent vegetative state after having a cardiac arrest? Ms. Schiavo had been sustained by artificial hydration and nutrition through a feeding tube for 15 years, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, was locked in a very public legal struggle with her parents and siblings about whether such treatment should be continued or stopped. Distortion by interest groups, media hyperbole, and manipulative use of videotape characterized this case and demonstrate what can happen when a patient becomes more a precedent-setting symbol than a unique human being (Quill, 2005). At the time of Terri’s heart attack, she did not have a living will or power of attorney. The question is, should Terri’s husband (Michael Schiavo) have the right to remove her feeding tubes? Michael stated that Terri told him before her heart attack that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. On that basis, since 1998, he repeatedly asks a local circuit court to order the removal of a tube that had been surgically implanted in her stomach to provide hydration, nutrition, and medication. On the other hand, Terri’s parents and siblings (who believed that she still have some cognitive function and at least limited potential for improved quality of life) repeatedly blocked Michael’s requested by various legal…
With the election just around the corner, many ballot questions throughout the United States are extremely controversial and one of these issues is evident in the state of Massachusetts. On November 6th, 2012, the citizens of Massachusetts will be asked to vote on the “Death with Dignity” initiative, also known as, “Question 2” which will appear on the general election ballot. This initiative is a law which will enable those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness, to obtain lethal prescription medications and use them as a more comfortable, controlled means of death. An option provided to these terminally ill people as an alternative to the drawn out and unbearably painful final months of life produced by their illness. A more specific description of the initiative is as follows: “According to the text of the initiative, the proposed measure would allow for a terminally ill patient to be given lethal drugs. A terminally ill patient would be defined as a patient being given six months or fewer to live. The patient requesting the medication must be mentally capable to make medical decisions while consulting their respective doctors. Patients would be required to submit their request orally twice and witnessed in writing, and the initial verbal request must be fifteen days prior to the written request and second oral request. The patient's terminal diagnosis and capability to make health care decisions must be confirmed by a second doctor” (mass.gov). Although, providing such drugs to people who are terminally ill appears to be a good idea there are many problems that must be addressed before the ballot should be passed.…
Meisel, A. Snyder, L. Quill, T. Seven Legal Barriers to End of Life Care. February 2010.…
Many traffic tickets are simply a matter of paying the fine. In some situations, you may be able to pay the ticket by mail or online. However, there are many tickets that can be serious, whether they require you to appear in court or not. The following are three situations when you need to speak to an attorney.…