We will all face ethical dilemmas at some point in our lives and / or careers. The term ethics is not readily defined, but varies according to discipline. For example, philosophers define ethics as a study of morality, whereas health care providers might explain it in terms of meeting patient needs and owing a responsibility to the patient. We often examine ethical issues not with a specific approach, but rather with a “hybrid” approach, based on past experiences, our conscience, legal constraints, and social influences and pressures. Often, ethical issues touch on legal issues, or are regulated by laws and regulations. Laws or rules are usually established to set minimum standards for society to employ when dealing with others.
The case of a woman battling for her life stirs controversy and becomes mainstream media worldwide. On February 25, 2009, 26 year-old Terry Schiavo was found by her husband, Michael Schiavo, after collapsing in their home (). She was believed to had an eating disorder known as bulimia, which can result in heart failure because of the lack of vitamins such as potassium(). Oxygen deprivation during the time of her collapse was believed to be the cause of brain damage, which doctors believed she was in a persistant vegetative state but not drain dead. However, the case sparks the medias attention eight years later when Terry’s husband Michael petitions to have his wife’s feeding tube removed whereas Terry’s parents contest Michaels petition to end her life (). The ethical concern is the right to die.
Euthanasia is a sensitive and debatable topic. From an ethical point of view, Terry’s situation should be handled delicately because of her inability to make her own decisions. The ethical importance begins with the guardian’s, Michael, decision to end his wife’s leife through starvation and the decision of Terry’s parents to keep her alive. In addition, the medical practitioners involved face the ethical dilemma of doing what’s in the best interest of the patient, Terry. The courts approved the removal of the feeding tube three times and only allowed the reinstating of the feeding tube twice, resulting in the death of Terry. The results of the case brought euthanasia to the forefront and how to treat severely disable individuals. In addition, the case brought the attention of the surrogate decision makers.
Legal and ethical issues cannot be examined independently. As noted, the definition of ethics varies greatly, but legal is defined as of, relating to, or concerned with law, which is set in stone (Legal, n.d.). A series of legal battles ensued between the parents of Terri and Michael, the husband. The parents as well as terri’s nurses claim that she was responsive and her condition does not meet the standards to be declared in a persistant vegetative state whereas Michael’s claims were dissimilar. However, terri left no advanced directive, which determines the means of medical care if left in an incapacitated state of mind.Michaels decision to remove the feding tube was finalized and approved by the courts resulting in terri’s death.
Wihtin the professional medical practice, there are two ethical princiles that surface during the case of Terri. The principle of beneficence is the process of acting with “charity and kindness”(). Focusing on beneficence means to set as priority the dignity of the individual. Terri Schiavo left no written record of her wishes should she end up in a persistent vegetative state(). Therefore, the pyhsicians and judge who ordered the removal of the feeding tube based the descision on the best interest of the husband, Michael. Terri was not terminally ill and only requires artificial means to be fed. Her body is able to carry on all other functions. According to the nurses who cared for terri, she was able to speak, respond, and even swallow foood, which was did not impact the orders to end Terri’s life. Terri’s level of unconsciousness was undetermined; therefore, her level of awareness was undetermined and her best interest was not taken into consideration. A conscious individual can experience suffering and terri responded to feelings and emotions. Therefore, removing the feeding tube, starvation, is unethical without completely detrmining her level of awreness. Furthermore, the physicians violate the the principle to do whats in the best interest of terri. In addition, terri’s ability to communicate should have impacted the end of life descision.
The principle of autonomy details the client's absolute rights to make healthcare decisions for themselves. However, in terri’s mental state of mind, Michael becomes the surrogate for determining the medical care for terri. Michael stated that terri would not have wanted to continue on with life in her condition. Although, this claim was not made until numerous years after the incident initially occurred. Thus, Michael suspiciously violated terri’s autonomy by ignoring her wishes. Therefore, the legal system and the physicians failed to uphold her autonomy by ordering and removing the feeding tuve, resulting in terri’s death.
A lesson to learn is that, just because a client's surrogate has decision- making power under the law, this does not guarantee that the surrogate is acting in the client's best interest.