Bioethics in Terri Schiavo’s Case
The case is that of Terri Schiavo, who was in a vegetative state in the 1990s and the legal issues that followed over the use of artificial medication that included using PEG tubes to provide nutrition and hydration. The patient had a husband, Mr. Schiavo, who, in 2000, petitioned for the services to be given to his wife. He faced constant legal affirmation that the PEG tubes were to be removed as per the patient’s wishes. However, he kept appealing in other courts, such as the appellant court, in 2000, until 2005, without the success of changing the rulings in his favor. He included licensed physicians whom he hired to provide affidavits over the patient’s health status to the judge. The patient’s parents were in support of Terri’s autonomy that had objected to the use of the tubes. The bioethical issue in question, therefore, is the respect autonomy and self-determination of Terri (Perry et al., 2005).
The bioethical issues that were featured in the case in regards to end-of-life issues are those of respect for patient’s autonomy, informed consent, and self-determination. They are the factors that were being defended by the courts and parents and violated by her husband. Autonomy is the right of the patient to make decisions on issues relating to their health care without the health care provider being involved in affecting the decision-making process. Through self-determination, they make choices and decisions about the extent and type of medical care they wish to accept or refuse. It is especially essential in case they become incapable of doing so when they lose consciousness due to illness. The physician is only allowed to educate the patient about the benefits, risks, and alternatives of a given intervention or procedure based on the diagnosed disease or condition. The aim of this is to facilitate informed consent before performing a medical procedure (Hussung, 2017).
In this case, Terri had exercised her right to autonomy after she was informed of her medical condition. She objected to artificial medication and nutrition, and through this, she had determined the course of her medical intervention based as per the self-determination Act (Hussung, 2017). She, therefore, the respect of this ethics was accomplished by her parents. Her husband, Mr. Schiavo, on the other hand, had violated this right when he had PEG tubes put in her to prolong her life against her wishes due to beneficence reasons (Perry et al., 2005). The courts ensured that her rights were upheld and implemented accordingly by the health care provider.
The healthcare providers, in this case, are the doctors that diagnosed and treated Terri and the nurses that administered medication to her. The decision to put the patient under artificial medication via PEG tubes by the doctor, assigned to her as per her husband’s wishes, was unethical as it violated the patient’s right to self-determination. The court order to remove them in 2000 indicated this situation. By considering the oral declarations of the patient that objected to their actions, the physicians involved removed the PEG tubes. The reason was to abide by her wishes and those of the bioethical code of ethics. Mr. Schiavo had hired licensed physicians to provide an affidavit regarding the patient’s status to the judge. The medical professionals had to make a report of the patient’s condition and make a decision on the patient’s bioethical issues that were at risk in case the tubes were retained. Therefore, the physician decided to remove the tube as ordered by the court abided by Terri Schiavo’s right to self-determination and autonomy (Perry et al., 2005).