Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethical issues surrounding euthanising animals
ethical issues surrounding euthanising animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethical issues surrounding euthanising animals
Terri Schiavo case study concluded to be a serious to the public. The outcome and misunderstandings surrounding her situation offer important lessons in medicine, law, and ethics. Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder. She suffered server brain damage due to her heart stopping for five minutes. Her condition was in great debate in the media euthanasia and guardianship of her state of living.
Terri Schiavo collapsed on February 25, 1990 in her Florida home from an “ice tea diet” which was related to her bulimia that was the result of a potassium deficiency. Due to her heart stopping for five minutes, Terri end up with brain damage. This brain damage was permanent and made Terri go into a vegetative state for the last fifteen years of her life. The doctors stated that there was no chance that she would return to normal someday. It wouldn’t be right to keep her on life support. It would bring a lot of change in hers and the people in her life.
Terri’s husband felt it will be best if she be taking off the feeding tube. He didn’t believe his wife would want to live the rest of her life with a feeding tube keeping her alive. Terri’s family didn’t feel like it was the best thing for her. Michael Schiavo felt her wishes should had been honored. He wanted the feeding tube to be removed which would cause Terri to die of malnutrition and dehydration. Her parents, did not want this, and wanted to keep their daughter alive no matter what.
Bob and Mary Schindler brought the issue to Florida courts many times, but every time they ruled that it was Michael Schiavo’s decision. Terri’s parents would not accept the verdict and they kept on fighting to keep their daughter alive. No...
... middle of paper ...
... was doing what he thought was best for her and what she wanted. We have the right to live why can’t we have the right to died when it’s nothing left of us to live.
It’s really not up to the courts or government to determine what is good for a human life. It crazy how they will put an animal down for not having a home or attacking a human being. Do we give animals a choice on their lives? No, we do not we just do what we think is best for that animal. Many people fail to realize a lot of things. They always say if it was me I wouldn’t want that for myself. In all respect no one really knows what they want if they was in that position. As for me I would rather die than to have my family and love one see me like that at all. This is why its best to have a living will with a breakdown of everything you want to happen for each possible way an accident can occur.
There are many ethical paradigms through which humans find guidance and justification for their own actions. In the case of contractarianism, citizens of a state are entitled to human rights, considered to be unalienable, and legal rights, which are both protected by the state. As Spinello says, “The problem with most rights-based theories is that they do not provide adequate criteria for resolving practical disputes when rights are in conflict” (14). One case that supports Spinello is the case of Marlise Munoz, a brain-dead pregnant thirty-three year old, who was wrongly kept on life support for nearly two months at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. Misinterpretation of the Texas Advance Directives Act by John Peter Smith Hospital led to the violation of the contractarian paradigm. Although the hospital was following the directive in order to maintain legal immunity for its hospital staff, the rights of the family were violated along with the medical fundamental principle to “first, do no harm.”
In February of 1990 a woman named Terri Schiavo collapsed at home suffering cardiac arrest in her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. She was resuscitated but had severe brain damage because she had no oxygen going to her brain for several minutes. Terri was severely brain damaged and in a vegetative state but could still breathe and maintain a heart beat on her own. After two and a half months and no signs of improvement, impaired vision, and the inability to move her arms and legs she needed a feeding tube to sustain her life since she seemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. For 2 years doctors attempted speech and physical therapy with no success. In 1998 Schiavos husband claimed she would not want to live in that quality of life without a prospect of recovery so he tried several times over the course of many years to pull the feeding tube so she could pass. Bob and Mary Schindler challenged and fought for a
The Casey Anthony trial has been arguably the most controversial case since the trial of O.J. Simpson and has been speculated over ever since the verdict had been given in July of 2011. It was decided by a jury of her peers that Anthony was not guilty of murder, for the death of her daughter Caylee. Many believe that Anthony should have been found guilty however, very little Americans actually comprehend the justice system.
Although Vivian lived a life as a harsh individual, approaching death is a frightening time. Vivian should have been treated with more respect, professionalism, better communication, and with dignity. I believe that she could have had a better outcome in her recovery process even through the fatality of her illness she would have at least died in peace and dignity. Although Vivian didn’t have anyone that could help mindfully guide her through her decisions regarding her diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for recovery the staff at the hospital should have been more concerned about advocating for her than they were with being concerned with using her for research.
Jahi McMath is a 13-year-old girl living in Oakland, CA who was declared brain dead by multiple neurologists more than three months ago. Jahi was declared brain-dead December 12th after barriers during surgery a few days earlier to remove her tonsils, adenoids, and uvula at Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland. At least three neurologists confirmed that Jahi was unable to breathe on her own, had no blood flow to her brain, and had no sign of electrical activity in her brain. Moreover, a court order kept Jahi's body on a ventilator while independent experts could be brought in to confirm the results (Wells, 2014). Even so, the McMath family was able to secure the release of Jahi's body through the county coroner, who issued a death certificate, and have been keeping her on a ventilator at an undisclosed facility ever since. This all occurred after Children’s Hospital released Jahi due to her severe brain damage along with the probability of the hospital receiving profit from discharging Jahi before her or her family were ready for her to be released (Johnson and Rhodes, 2010, p. 61).
The case of Terri Schiavo began in the early morning hours February 25, 1990 in the home of Terri and Michael Schiavo. When Michael came home from work and found his wife unconscious. Ms. Schiavo has gone into a form of cardiac arrest brought on by hypokalemia, an imbalance in blood potassium levels. In this case low potassium levels had fo...
Terri Schiavo is a forty year old women who had a severe heart attack 15 years ago which resulted in brain damage. She had no living will so there is no legal document of what she would have wanted if she became brain damage and couldn’t function on her own but her husband, Michael Schiavo, says that after 15 years of being on a feeding tube she would have wanted to die. The question is should he have the right to remove the feeding tube? Anybody who knows me will know that my answer is no! The reason for that is because I am a Christian and I do not believe in terminating someone’s life. It’s my belief that as long as a persons heart is beating he or she stills has life in them.
Justice is something that we all as human being want to see fulfill, especially when we are the one that need it for us or our love ones. The family members of those who were killed by Susan Atkins and her companion will agree with it. The damage cause to their dears and the endless pain and suffering in effect from their death will support the decision take by the parole board in September 2, 2009 in the denial of a compassionate release due to Atkins’ health.
Johnson, Harriet McBryde. "Not Dead at All: Why Congress Was Right to Stick up for Terri Schiavo." Slate Magazine, 23 March 2005
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
When doctors treat their patients they give their patients full autonomy about all the treatment options available and also the side effects related to the treatment, so that the patient can make a decision which would be most beneficial for them. In “The Death Treatment”, Aviv interviews Thienpont and writes that “Before approving for euthanasia, she doesn’t require patients to try procedures that they think are invasive” (62). Instead of informing and giving her patients all the treatment they need, Thienpont lets her patients proceed with euthanasia. A therapy called electroconvulsive therapy, which Godelieva never received, is effective for half of the patients with depression. One of the questions this raises is that why was she not given this treatment that had a fifty percent chance to cure her before getting euthanized? And also, did she even know that this treatment was available? And if she would have known about it then, how this would have shaped her decision to file for euthanasia. Aviv also writes that in her defense Thienpont says that “Sometimes its really too late. If the patient’s energy is gone, then it is not humane to say, ‘Well, maybe if you go to a hospital that specializes in your problem for two or more years, it will help.’ I
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
Tracy’s father was faced with an unfortunate decision, and in his decision, I cannot condemn him for his actions. Now saying this I don’t believe what he did was particularly the right decision or particularly the wrong decision. As for his life sentence, it’s quite outrageous. My reasoning for this is because of his actual intentions and his mental rationale in doing so. He claims that he did it out of love and mercy, which I whole-heartedly agree with. With Tracy’s condition already being a significant trouble to live with and the fact that her surgeries brought her much pain and suffering is something that would be hard to bear. They claimed that she had the mental capacity of a four month old baby, so in that sense, it’s almost like watching an innocent baby constantly in pain. One part of the case says that Tracy’s mother believed that the many surgeries especially the one that removed her upper thigh bone were not surgeries but mutilations. I can see why her mother would think this. I can only imagine what it would be like to watch your loved one constantly be mutilated and going under the knife. Surgery and visits to the doctor alone can be stressful enough in itself, let alone ones that can be perceived as mutilations. Additionally the case states that Tracy had 5-6 seizures a day, which would imaginably be hard to watch and care for. Ultimately, I cannot in any way condemn Tracy’s
End of life relating to persistent vegetative state. What defines end of life diagnosis or terminal disease process with less than 6 months to live? That is the exact argument that Tom Koch believes is why the wrong decision was made. Florida State said that no recovery possible bases on a long-lasting and irreversible condition. Those opposed to this philosophy argued that her condition was only end- stage and what would cause end of life is withholding and withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. Which provokes the next argument? If all cerebral function had ceased would Terri have been able to suffer? Did Terri have the sense of personhood? Personhood is defined, as an existential attribute that meaning is grounded on ones relationship to
.... Even though it may be an animal it's life is still precious. But mankind knows letting the animal suffer is wrong. So how is allowing a human to suffer right? Any type of creature in pain, suffering, and not wanting to live deserves the right to decide whether or not they continue on with life.