Terri Schiavo's Right-to-Die Case: A Decade-Long Battle

Introduction

Theresa Schiavo was an individual who went into cardiac arrest in her home on February 25, 1990. She was admitted to Humana Northside Hospital in Florida and was later diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state patient. According to her husband, Michael Schiavo, he stated that her wish was to not prolong the time on life support if there was no chance in recovery, which he tried to obey nearly a decade later. However, this has raised some concerns with Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and had not only become an issue between the husband and parents; it had become a controversial political debate. Terri's parents were opposed to taking her off life support and from removing her feeding tube as it went against the Catholic/Christian church teachings on euthanasia and Terri was a devoted Roman Catholic. Also, since the court appointed her husband, Michael Schiavo as Terri's legal guardian, if she were to pass away, he would be able to inherit a large sum of money. This was one of the factors that raised concern from Terri's parents as his request from taking her off life support, was solely based on his inheritance as long as he stayed married to her. The paper here analyses the case of Terry Schiavo and possible options regarding decision yet to be made.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Someone in a persistent vegetative state is termed a person physically despite the unconscious state driven by conditions such as cardiac arrest and hypoxia among other causes related to medical conditions. Capacity for neurological functioning of the brain only covers the physiological state of the patient brain and offers no enough support to term an individual, not a person. Therefore, such state of an individual should instead be examined thoroughly but not with the sole reason for initiating euthanasia procedures to the person (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen & Urwin, 2016). The same state should be examined with uppermost keenness to outweigh a person's interests, those people who want to benefit from the euthanasia medical procedure of the victim. Personal medical assistants appointed legal by courts in such cases may develop mere claims, claims intended to help their interest that may be as a result of euthanasia.

The Congress should not have jurisdiction over such issues, especially over non-involuntary euthanasia. Moreover, in cases where there are no clear claims that the process intended to be initiated based on the statement made by the individual, which is the point where jurisdiction should take part in such issues. The sole aim of the Congress should form the basis for determining truth in the underlying claims made, then allow the continuation of the process if right but not deciding.

One might suppose a congressional interest (under the tax and spend power of Congress) in the regulation of these issues as they relate to federal healthcare programs, but otherwise, it is hard to conjure a legitimate argument that federal jurisdiction exists for end-of-life decisions. The Rehabilitation Act or Americans with Disabilities Act might be argued.

Supposing a congressional interest in the regulation of these issues as they relate to federal healthcare programs should not be an immediate option here. Congress interest over this issue should be depended upon claims made and should not even happen based on voluntary euthanasia.

If this kind of case were to arise at your healthcare facility, how might you attempt to avoid this lengthy, contentious, and expensive conflict? To avoid such issues, I will shortly examine the probability that the patient will survive, and if I find a zero percent probability, then I will recommend euthanasia as an ultimate solution.

Discuss the use of a multidisciplinary approach to include ethicists, chaplains, social workers, the patient's pastoral or spiritual advisors, the hospital ethics committee (or IRB, perhaps), and legal counsel. Stress that this is not primarily a legal dispute; it is a profoundly personal human drama that may have legal overtones but cannot (or at least should not) solve solely or primarily with legal ratiocination.

The right to life is a human right, a fundamental right for human beings. Such issues that pertain an individual life should not be influenced by Congress jurisdiction should never happen to be primarily a legal dispute that leads to cases. A multidisciplinary approach is in total disagreement with law policies governing euthanasia process of either to decide when to end the life of an individual or not (Francis, L. J., McKenna & Sahin 2019). Ethicist such as philosophers offers excellent examples of how life is a treasure and this translates to denying authority to decide over when to end someone's life. Chaplains and social workers values life and the euthanasia procedure should not be based on law.

References

Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.

Francis, L. J., McKenna, U., & Sahin, A. (2019). Religion, Human Rights and Matters of Life and Death: Exploring Attitude Toward Abortion and Euthanasia Among Adolescents in England and Wales. In Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty and Religion-The Right to Life and its Limitations (pp. 139-159). Springer, Cham.