Summary: The Terri Schaivo Case
Red Team:
Amber Boyadjian, Ashley Friedl, Cindi Hedrick, Alison McCarthy, & Amanda Ogden
Grand Canyon University: NRS-437V
August 23, 2014
Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma The infamous “Terri Schaivo case” was one of ethical vs. medical consideration, and how those decisions made impacted how human euthanasia is currently viewed. From a healthcare provider’s perspective, we will be reviewing this topic and its related ethical implications, laws regarding this topic, and the stakeholders involved in the case. While the Schaivo case is reviewed here, we will also discuss the impact it has had on social values, morals, norms, and nursing practice as we attempt to explore the impact this trial has had on …show more content…
Terri Schaivo entered a vegetative state in early 1990. Both her private doctors and those that were court appointed believed that there was no hope of rehabilitation. Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, wished to follow his wife’s request for no mechanical means of extending her life however, Terri’s parents disputed the removal of support. The Schaivo case was heard more than twenty times in Florida courts and in each instance the courts ruled in the husband’s favor. Eventually politicians inserted themselves into the case which became the catalyst for “Terri’s Law”, giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to have Schaivo’s feeding tube re-inserted when a court ruled it removed. The U.S. Congress became involved shortly after “Terri’s Law” and passed legislation allowing federal courts to intervene. Terri Schaivo’s feeding tube was finally removed on March 18, 2005, and she passed away 13 days later. Upon autopsy, her brain was half the weight of a healthy human brain. The medical examiner was quoted as saying “The damage was irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons” (Goodnough, …show more content…
The removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube went against the non-malfeasance principle. The ethical principle of non-malfeasance is the avoidance of harm on a patient (ANA, n.d.). “Judges who would not halt the removal of Schiavo’s PEG tube were ‘guilty not only of judicial malfeasance — but of the cold-blooded, cold-hearted extermination of an innocent human life’” (Bishop, 2008). The same could be said about the healthcare provider that removed the PEG tube. Physicians and nurses take oaths and pledges that state they will do no harm to patients in their care. When the PEG tube was removed it took away her means of hydration. The symptoms of extreme dehydration are extremely painful. The other side of the ethical dilemma could be that the family wanted to end her suffering. Although by doing so wouldn’t that open the doors to ending people’s lives in the future that are cognitively disabled being euthanized in the same
Amber Boyadjian, Ashley Friedl, Cindi Hedrick, Alison McCarthy, & Amanda Ogden
Grand Canyon University: NRS-437V
August 23, 2014
Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma The infamous “Terri Schaivo case” was one of ethical vs. medical consideration, and how those decisions made impacted how human euthanasia is currently viewed. From a healthcare provider’s perspective, we will be reviewing this topic and its related ethical implications, laws regarding this topic, and the stakeholders involved in the case. While the Schaivo case is reviewed here, we will also discuss the impact it has had on social values, morals, norms, and nursing practice as we attempt to explore the impact this trial has had on …show more content…
Terri Schaivo entered a vegetative state in early 1990. Both her private doctors and those that were court appointed believed that there was no hope of rehabilitation. Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, wished to follow his wife’s request for no mechanical means of extending her life however, Terri’s parents disputed the removal of support. The Schaivo case was heard more than twenty times in Florida courts and in each instance the courts ruled in the husband’s favor. Eventually politicians inserted themselves into the case which became the catalyst for “Terri’s Law”, giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to have Schaivo’s feeding tube re-inserted when a court ruled it removed. The U.S. Congress became involved shortly after “Terri’s Law” and passed legislation allowing federal courts to intervene. Terri Schaivo’s feeding tube was finally removed on March 18, 2005, and she passed away 13 days later. Upon autopsy, her brain was half the weight of a healthy human brain. The medical examiner was quoted as saying “The damage was irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons” (Goodnough, …show more content…
The removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube went against the non-malfeasance principle. The ethical principle of non-malfeasance is the avoidance of harm on a patient (ANA, n.d.). “Judges who would not halt the removal of Schiavo’s PEG tube were ‘guilty not only of judicial malfeasance — but of the cold-blooded, cold-hearted extermination of an innocent human life’” (Bishop, 2008). The same could be said about the healthcare provider that removed the PEG tube. Physicians and nurses take oaths and pledges that state they will do no harm to patients in their care. When the PEG tube was removed it took away her means of hydration. The symptoms of extreme dehydration are extremely painful. The other side of the ethical dilemma could be that the family wanted to end her suffering. Although by doing so wouldn’t that open the doors to ending people’s lives in the future that are cognitively disabled being euthanized in the same