They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their lives are. So the medical, legal and moral questions arise; should PVS patients be denied nutrition and hydration until they die? Patients living in PVS’s should be given every medical treatment available to increase their chances for recovery but rather they recover or not they are human beings and the limited life they have should be preserved and treated with dignity.
Terri Schiavo with her mother at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida in 2005.
Permanent Vegetative State
Disorders of consciousness (DOC) refer to patients in comas, vegetative states (VS), locked-in-syndrome, and minimally conscious states. Characteristics of the vegetative state are arousal without awareness of self or environment. The persons can blink their eyes, smile, and make noises, but these functions are solely involuntary. “A “persistent vegetative state” is a vegetative state that remains one month after brain damage, which becomes a “permanent vegetative state” three months after non-traumatic brai...
... middle of paper ...
...Responding to Persons in a Persistent Vegetative State. Retrieved from
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/donal/pvs.htm.
Rakestraw, R. (2004). The Persistent Vegetative State and the Withdrawal of Nutrition and
Hydration. Retrieved from http://http://people.bethel.edu/~rakrob/
Ronald Cranford. (2005). Facts, Lies, and Videotapes: The Permanent Vegetative State and the
Sad Case of Terri Schiavo. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33(2), 363-71.
Retrieved January 26, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 860574831).
Sarà, M., & Pistoia, F. (2010). Defining Consciousness: Lessons from Patients and Modern
Techniques. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27(4), 771-3. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2016803151).
Too Vigorously Assisted Suicide. (2005). National Review, 57(6), 14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
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
A case such as this one was the first of its kind, so the outcome of the trials was very important for setting a precedent in similar cases in the future. This is a Landmark Case for long-term comatose patients without a mandate. From then on, there would be no more legal issues when facing this type of situation. It is also important to note that American conservative groups used this case to promote their disapproval of Mr. Schiavo’s position, in a failed attempt to end the Death with Dignity Act.
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
Three lines of evidence suggest that PVS patients are "noncognitive, nonsentient, and incapable of conscious experience [12]." First, motor and eye movement, and facial expressions in response to stimuli occur in stereotyped patterns rather than learned reactions. Second, positron emission tomography reveals cerebral glucose metabolism at a level far below those who are aware or in locked in states. PVS levels are comparable to those in deep general anesthesia and as such are totally unaware and insensate. Third, neuropathological examinations of PVS patients show "lesions so severe and diffuse [12]" that it would be almost impossible, giving our current understanding of neural an...
Braddok III Clarence H. MD MPH .” Physician aid-in-dying: Ethical topics in medicine” n.d University of Washington school of medicinestate death with dignity act” N.p n.d University of Washington department of bioethics and humanities 2009 web 24 March 2012
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.
The denial of food and fluids to Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the 36 year old Florida woman in a vegetative state since a heart attack, has caused Americans to ponder the fact that any one of them could be in this woman's place for a variety of reasons, like an auto accident, fall, mishap, etc. And most Americans don't want to be treated by their family as Terri is being treated by her husband - being denied food and fluids in order to hasten death.
In closing, the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system is vital for basic bodily functioning and processes. Injury, disease or abnormal structure of the brain will greatly affect one's behaviour, emotional regulation, mental processes and functioning. The brain will respond to any trauma, injury or abnormality to accommodate the dysfunction. During this response, the brain will physically change, the process called neuroplasticity, and attempt to "rewire" the brain to return to normal functioning. In the treatment of many cases as previously discussed, the aim was to reconnect neurons and the theory of neuroplasticity was the foundation behind it.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
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
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Are we all living to die? And if so should we have a choice on how we die? There are many ethical dilemmas surrounding assisted suicide. What things will dictate our right to die: terminal illness, depression, or your constitution rights? The Bill of Rights state in the eighth amendment, “ nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, so would it be considered cruel inflicted punishment to deny a person with a terminal illness and a few agonizing months to live the right to end their suffering sooner? A health care professional takes an oath to preserve life and wellness so assisting a person with suicide would jeopardize their ethical and moral duty to their profession. Also,
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
The first definition of ethical in the dictionary is “pertaining to, or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” The first definition Dilemma is defined as “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” Using these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as when a person has to choose a decision that goes against one’s morals. One alternative may have a negative impact on one’s life or another person’s life. Another alternative may be an excellent choice for one person but may have negative impacts as well. Therefore, an ethical dilemma often puts ones morals and values into question. This paper will review a case study of euthanasia,