Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Right to die
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=====Terri Schiavo===== The [[Terri Schiavo case]] occurred between 1990 and 2005. This case was controversial due to a disagreement between Schiavo's immediate family members and her husband. In the Quinlan and Cruzan cases, the family was able to make a unanimous decision on the state of their daughters. Schiavo suffered from a cardiac arrest which led to her collapse and soon after began to have trouble breathing. The lack of oxygen to her brain caused irreversible brain damage, leaving her in a vegetative state and required a feeding tube and ventilator to keep her alive. Schiavo left no advance directive or had a discussion with her parents or husband about what she may have wanted if something were to happen to her. Soon after, her husband was appointed as her legal guardian.<ref name="Colby_2005"/> Years later, her husband decided to remove Schiavo's feeding tube since the chances of her waking up were slim to none. Schiavo's family, however, argued against this decision and brought this case to court. The case was very turbulent and occurred over some years and involved the state and its legislators before a decision was made.<ref name = "Colby_2005" /> This brought up bioethical debates on the discontinuation of Schiavo's life vs. allowing her to continue living in a permanent vegetative state. Those who were for preserving Schiavo's life stated that removing the tube would be ethically immoral since they do not know what she would have wanted. They challenged her physical and mental state and stated that she might have some consciousness; thus she deserved to continue living. Those for removing the tube argued for self-determination and that her quality of life was diminished.<ref name = "Colby_2005" /><ref name="Koch_2005">{{cite journal | vauthors = Koch T | title = The challenge of Terri Schiavo: lessons for bioethics | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 31 | issue = 7 | pages = 376β78 | date = July 2005 | pmid = 15994353 | pmc = 1734190 | doi = 10.1136/jme.2005.012419 }}</ref><ref name="Weijer_2005">{{cite journal | vauthors = Weijer C | title = A death in the family: reflections on the Terri Schiavo case | journal = Canadian Medical Association Journal | volume = 172 | issue = 9 | pages = 1197β98 | date = April 2005 | pmid = 15805148 | pmc = 557072 | doi = 10.1503/cmaj.050348 }}</ref> The Schiavo case is the most recent and significant right to die case that propagates the thought of having an advance directive or living will. It also further looks into other complications that can arise, such as family disagreements, which should have been accounted for when dealing with a right to die case.<ref name = "Colby_2005" /><ref name="Weijer_2005" /> ;See also * ''[[Washington v. Glucksberg]]'' * ''[[Vacco v. Quill]]''
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)