Bioethics of Terri Schiavo Case

Bioethics plays a major role in ensuring the proper implications of health care for all people. It is defined as both ethical and moral reasons on what the best interest of a person during medical treatment is. Whenever a person is medically incapable of making their own medical decisions, it is up to the closet family member to represent them, unless otherwise stated. The battle of Terri Schiavo was one of the most debated and controversial cases of withdrawing treatment in America and its details should be examined and discussed.

What the issues was: Terri became in a vegetative state after having a cardiac arrest inflicted by hypokalemia bought on by an eating disorder. Hypokalemia occurs when a person’s blood potassium levels are too low- these levels are essential for functioning muscles in the heart. As a result, Terri developed numerous illnesses, ultimately leaving no functional activity of her cerebral cortex causing her to be in persistent vegetative state. A person in vegetative state has very minimal capabilities including no signs of emotion, periods of wakefulness and sleep, and minimal interaction and comprehension of what was going on around them.

Terri was “sustained by artificial hydration and nutrition through a feeding tube for 15 years” and served more like a “precedent-setting symbol” than an actual human being (Quill, 2005, par. 1) Her husband and her parents were in a public legal battle about whether treatment to keep her alive should be continued. One major dispute concerning Terri’s case was that it was hard to recognize whether she was suffering since there was no cortical activity.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Bioethics

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Florida state law deemed any person with no chance of possible recovery as components to be legally allowed for the withdrawal of any type of life support. The problem thus arises from the debate between her parent and husband about what her medical state would be considered.

The implications: Being in a persistent vegetative state for so long, made it hard for any testing to be done of Terri to reveal whether she would ever return to a normal state. Her parents argued that there were cases where people in these states had their basic brain functions restored, however, her husband argued they were not disabled as long as Terri was. Despite her vegative state, Terri still possessed the quality of life which Koch refers to as personhood making the battle between her parents and husband a reasonable one. The implications of this “personhood” assessment are that regardless of a person’s cognitive or physical abilities their personhood is “grounded in one’s relationship to others.” (Koch, 2005, par. 13) The idea of Terri’s personhood was ultimately a main reason why the battle for her life was so disputed as many people were stuck between who Terri was and her new medical state.

What part politics played: Terri’s case made it difficult to define what family is and how courts must go about medical decisions if the “immediate family is not in agreement.” (Quill, 2005, par. 7) According to Florida law, “clear and convincing” evidence is needed to be decided what is in the best interest of the patient. Because Terri was unable to speak, the court was left to investigate what she would have wanted to do since both her parents and husband where in disagreement. Terri Schiavo’s case was set in front of a Florida judge where numerous health professionals, including neurologist and radiologist, testified on the behalf of her condition. Both, her parents and husband, had their own set of doctors give their own diagnosis of Terri’s condition.

The media even played a large role in publicizing Terri’s case and often distorted the truth and manipulated videos to dramatize and instigate what should have been a private matter. Many videos of Terri were highly edited and could be interrupted as if she had more ability to function than she did. T. Koch refers to the media takeover of Terri’s case as “hijacking” and refers to the media’s coverage as uniformed and biased. (Koch, 2005, par. 2) During the time of Terri’s case many different religious organization and political entities used this as a platform to express their opioins and views on the removal of treatment.

What was the outcome: Ultimately, a Florida judge favored on side of Terri’s husband allowing the removal of her feeding tube. Some state laws have shifted since the case making the process of withdrawing treatment a state legislature issue, it is different for every state. In certain states “only married relatives have the standing to make treatment decision” (Caplan. 2015, par 10) while since Terri’s case three states created laws which allow terminally ill patients to end their lives. Terri’s public battle also stressed the importance of discussing death and one’s desires to live or terminate life support before it is too late to avoid any legal issues with family members.

Conclusion: The case of Terri Schiavo is very hard to have an opinion on for the mere fact I do not know what she would have wanted. In the evident that she did have a conversation with her husband, about not wanting to live off a machine than I truly believe life support should have been terminated to fulfill the patient’s request. I do understand the parents desire to keep her alive for longer, however, and I am completely sympathetic with them. All in all, as her husband, I believe he should have been given the final say in to her medical condition. When one commits in marriage, I believe this is a very sacred bond which comes before any other. When you get married, your parents are giving you away to your husband and thus giving him the authority to make descions for them. Despite accusations and claims that Terri’s husband was in a new relationship, with a new woman, I do not believe that should be used to discredit him. On the outside looking in he may seem as a compassionless man, however, who knows the personal struggles he had to deal with losing his wife to an unfortunate medical emergency. I also firmly believe the media should not be allowed to publicize private medical matters as it distorts the truth and makes it easier for controversy to arise.