The Terri Schiavo case follows the plight of Terri, who collapsed at home in February 1990 and fell into a coma. She emerged from the coma in May 1990 but remained unconscious in a permanent vegetative state, a condition in which although she could breathe, maintain a heartbeat and blood pressure on her own, she required a feeding tube connected to her stomach to sustain life ( Annas, 2005) . Terri’s parents and her husband Michael worked with doctors to assist Terri to regain consciousness, but even after years of rehabilitation, she was unable to improve. Therefore, Michael, who was Terri’s legal guardian sought to discontinue life support, arguing it would have been Terri’s wish to die, an argument that was challenged by Terri Schiavo’s family. However, after a prolonged legal battle which mainly focused on autonomy rights of the patient and end of life issues, these capped with media attention and public opinion, Judge Greer ordered for the cessation of the artificial hydration and nutrition, and Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005 ( Quill, 2005) .
The primary bioethical issue in contention, in this case, was the principle of autonomy. This principle follows the premise that every individual has the right to make decisions about their life, these including medical choices. Judge Greer and the appellate court decisions were based on Mrs Schiavo’s autonomy rights, independent of public opinion, state, or that of the family. Analysis of evidence provided indicated the patient was in a persistent vegetative state and there was no possibility of her regaining consciousness or communicating ( Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005) . Her inability to communicate makes Michael, the legal guardian to the patient, responsible for making the decisions, such as seen in the 1976 case of Karen Ann Quinlan the parents, who were the legal guardians to the patient, the permission to withdraw a respirator from the vegetative patient ( Thompson, 2005; Wallis, 2003) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court adhered to the bioethical principle of autonomy because the verdict made by the judge was based on the understanding that the patient would not have wanted to live in such a state. It was thus correct to order the removal of the PEG tube as per the wishes of the husband, and also because the patient had told him she would not want to live in a compromised state. The decision not to remove the guardianship of Michael for example, although it was claimed he had a child with his girlfriend Jodi Centonze, and further followed his wishes to remove the PEG tube emphasize the importance of the principle of autonomy by the court.
References
Annas, G. J. (2005). Culture of life” politics at the bedside—the case of Terri Schiavo. New England Journal of Medicine , 352 (16), 1710-1715.
Perry, J. E., Churchill, L. R., & Kirshner, H. S. (2005). The Terri Schiavo case: legal, ethical, and medical perspectives. Annals of Internal Medicine , 143 (10), 744-748.
Quill, T. E. (2005). Terri Schiavo—a tragedy compounded. New England Journal of Medicine , 352 (16), 1630-1633.
Thompson, R. E. (2005). The Terri Schiavo dilemma: an ethics report card with a few surprises. Physician executive , 31 (5), 60.
Wallis, C. (2003). The twilight zone of consciousness. 43-44.
