The Terri Schiavo case study

What followed was a legal dispute between her family and her husband that dragged on for more than 15 years. Both her husband and her family were split on what would be the most ethical thing to do. Their options were to either let Terri die through euthanasia or let her live under life support for the rest of her life. Withdrawing hydration and nutrition would allow Terri to die a natural death as permitted under Florida’s statutes for end-stage cases for patients in terminal conditions. Her family, however, argued for Terri’s continuance by asserting that her state would only become end-stage if both nutrition and hydration were withdrawn (Thompson, 2005). In January 2000, a trial was held in Judge George Greer’s courtroom to resolve the dispute and determine what Terri would want if she were able to communicate (Koch, 2005).

It is imperative to note that such (end-of-life) controversies fall under state law, which varies throughout the nation. In Florida, where the trial was held, case laws and statutes acknowledge everyone’s fundamental right to control their person, their ability to communicate notwithstanding (Thompson, 2005). In this case, the inability to communicate was established and there was no previous written medical or legal directive. In such an instance, the law considers oral declarations made previously provided they meet the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Analysis of the Husband’s and Parent’s Actions Several Florida courts determined that during two funerals Terri had attended while still healthy, she had discussed with Michael, her sister-in-law, and brother-in-law the possibility of being in a vegetative state in the future.

She had told them that she would prefer to be allowed to die a natural death (Thompson, 2005). However, she never signed a will or medical directive as proof of her wishes. Since they were not legally divorced, Michael was Terri’s legal guardian (Koch, 2005). He accepted the determination by court-appointed physicians that Terri was in a PVS with no possibility of recovery. Natural law is a moral theory that seeks to preserve and protect the innocent, and it holds that any form of killing is never morally right. It also holds that God is the sole giver and taker of life and only Him can decide when to end a person’s life. It is clear that Terri’s parents believed in the sanctity of life (Preston & Kelly, 2006).

However, Terri’s wishes suggested otherwise, and that is why I believe that Michael was justified in seeking the removal of his wife’s PEG tube. End of Life Issues Involved in the Case Autonomy Autonomy implies that a patient is left to make their treatment decisions and that their refusal or consent to undergo treatment ought to be respected. There was also an excessive loss of Purkinje cells in Terri’s cerebellum. Terri had extensive hypoxic-ischemic brain damage. It proved that expert opinion was right and Terri’s parents were wrong since Terri would have never recovered. In removing her PEG tube, justice was served. Power of Attorney Terri’s parents refused to accept her diagnosis and insisted that therapy could improve her condition.

An advance directive is one way to do so. Advance directives do not require the presence of a lawyer, and they allow the writer to designate the person to make their health care choices in the event that they are no longer able to do so. It also allows the writer to specify conditions under which they should be taken out of life-sustaining care. An advance directive has to be signed by a mentally competent adult in the presence of either two witnesses or a notary. Had Terri Schiavo written an advance directive, she could have saved her husband and family a lot of time and trouble (Perry, Churchill & Kirshner, 2005). Schiavo’s life had deteriorated severely and was dependent on machines and other people to continue living, implying that she was under extraordinary care.