More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to terri schiavo case
Terri Schiavo case
Terri schiavo case legal ethical and medical perspective essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Terri Schiavo
Life or Death
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.
In the New York Times Abby Goodnough and Maria Newman reports that on March 30 that the parents of Terri Schiavo latest appeal was turn down. It stated that one of the judges Stanley F. Birch, wrote that it was in his opinion the special law that was hastily passed by Congress on March 21 was unconstitutional. It was immediately signed by President Bush in hopes that it would help Terri’s parents. He says that it was unconstitutional and violated the principal of separation of powers. I understand under the federal law if there is no living will to determine who is to have custody of a person in this situation, automatically the decision making fall to a spouse or next in Kin. But in this situation where Mr. Schiavo never mention that Terri wanted to be taken off of the feeding tube until 1998, I can see why the law would be completely fair.
In the Chicago Tribune it stated that some supporters of the Schindlers has doubts of Mr. Schiavo ethics and his fitness for guardianship of Terri. They bought forward affidavits from his former girlfriends saying that they swore he confided in them stating he had no idea what his wife’s end-of-life wishes were. Also former care-givers of Terri stated that Mr. Schiavo was abusive to the home nursing staff and expressed the wish that Terri was dead. I feel this evidence is enough to put the feeding tube back in. To have so many people contest want Mr. Schiavo was saying and to just have the courts ignore it over and over again, I feel is unconstitutional.
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
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.
US Supreme Court in 1927, in the case Buck v. Bell put a legal example that states can sterilize public institutions inmates (Lombardo, 2009). The argument of the court was that epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and imbecility are hereditary and it was important to the inmates from passing these defects to other generations. May 2nd 1927, the court ordered Buck Carrie, whom it referred as a feebleminded daughter to get sterilization following the 1924 Virginia act of Eugenical Sterilization. Carrie had a feebleminded daughter and her mother was feebleminded too. The case determined that obligatory sterilization laws did not infringe the due process given by the US constitution 14th amendment. It established the legal mandate and bolstered US eugenics movement for sterilizing over 60,000 citizens in over thirty states. Most of these practices ended in 1970s (Reilly, 1991).
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
Mr. Shiavo was doing his job as a caretaker for his wife, taking her to get the necessary treatment that she needed and required, and really and truly sticking by his wife in such a rough circumstance. He stated that "my wife had said she would never want to be kept alive if she were in a vegetative state". (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/). He was just honoring what she had wanted to do if this type of situation would ever happen, and he was obeying what she wanted. I have to totally agree with him, and how he tried and did take care of Terry. It gets hard on families and also it can take a toll of them when there is a sick family member who is in need of 24 hour care. Ethically, I see that Michael was right; however I am also in limbo to where I think he could have turned Terry's custody over to her parents, even though he did honor what she wanted. Sometimes families find themselves in a comfort zone by trying to come to peace with there loved ones by sitting there with there loved ones while they are on the machine. I couldn't imagine this struggle between Terry's family and Michael.
In my opinion, if a person is terminally ill and there is no chance of bringing them back then they should have the right to make the choice whether they want to be kept alive or let go. What is the point of sitting in a hospital for the rest of a person’s life if they are not going to be able to do any thing? This claim is supported throughout the entire text through her believes in religion. And every night I prayed that his agonized eyes would never again plead with me to let him die (96). Barbara talked about how she wondered about a spiritual judge, and by this, it shows that religion is an important part in her life. Several times in the text, he begs to be let go so his suffering could be come to an end. Some would ask why we would not have the right to die. How enjoyable could life be when a person must be resuscitated fifty-two times in just one month?
She was a 29 year old newlywed with a terminal brain tumor that lived in California. After learning about her tumor she had several procedures done to attempt to stop the progression of the growth of the tumor. Unfortunately, not only did the tumor not slow down, it actually became more aggressive. The doctors gave Brittany six months to live. The doctors presented her with options of treatment where the hair of her scalp would be singed off and her head left with first-degree burns, among others. She had to weigh her options and determine her quality of life. Her and her husband came to the difficult conclusion that there was no treatment that would save her life and all the treatments that were suggested to her would destroy the quality of the time she had left. She did not want to put her family through the nightmare of watching her decline and suffer on hospice and so she decided that death with dignity is what she wanted to
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.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
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.
The cases presented the situations of the pregnant single woman, the childless couple, and the practicing physician. They determined that Roe and Hallford had just cause to sue because they presented justiciable controversies. The Doe’s had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy, thus they had no standing for a case. It was decided that with respect to the respect to the requests for a declaratory judgment, abstention was not warranted. The court found that the fundamental rights of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected under the ninth amendment, through the fourteenth amendment. They also found that the Texas abortion statutes are void as vagueness and for overbroadly infringing the ninth and fourteenth amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The district court ruled in Roe’s favor on the legal merits of her case, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
St. Olaf College's theme for Women's History Month is "Women in Politics." The featured guest speaker was Sarah Weddington, the attorney who, in 1973, argued the winning side of Roe vs. Wade before the United States Supreme Court. This decision significantly influenced women's reproductive rights by overturning the Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States.
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
...t the court left for states to ban late-term abortions. Many feel that a fetus near the end of a pregnancy is simply too like a human to come up with any justification for killing it, unless the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother. The line on the spectrum that the court ended up defining was based on when the fetus becomes viable. Before this point, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and the court left the mother with the ability to withdraw her support from the fetus. After the point of viability, society as a whole is then able to assist in taking care of the infant. This then, is where the fetus gains the added requirement to its right to life discussed earlier.