Thecase involving Terri Schiavo was deemed a right-to-die legal issue.It all started as a small family matter. Her husband was taking goodcare of her only to get tired after a while. He suggested that hertime on earth was up. The statement angered her parents who claimedhe was no longer a fit guardian to their daughter. They claimed thathe was motivated by the wealth that he was planning to inherit fromhis wife in addition to the many women he had out of wedlock.Nonetheless, a long legal drama ensued.
Thehusband moved to the Florida federal court after receivingunpromising news from all doctors who came to see her. The judgessupported his claim saying that she would not have wished forcontinued life-prolonging measures. The parents, however, appealedfor the reinstatement of the feeding tube on their daughter. The caseattracted much attention all over the United States and other partsof the world. George W. Bush, who the president by then, alsointervened opposed the decision of the court to remove her from themachine claiming that she had a right to life. The woman in thesubject had developed immense brain damage which was a result ofinsufficient air in her brain back in 1990 and was left comatose(Álvaresn& Fernandes, 2016). After several unsuccessful appeals,the Pinellas Park Hospice Center disconnected the tube, and thepatient died hours later on the last day of March 2005. I believethat the parents were correct because Terri had a right to life andtreatment both of which were to be respected by her husband.
Theactions and the suggestion of Michael, Terri’s husband were allbased on what would be convenient for him. He did not put himself inthe shoes of his wife. Accordint to Rohlinger et al. (2015)Michaelargued that his wife would also settle for the same decision whicharguably was a lie since there wasn’t such a written will from her.Ostensibly, the husband did not want to live with a disabled person.He did not want all his money and wealth to be exhausted in the nameof her rehabilitation. He already had another girlfriend and used theunpromising health condition of Terri as a scapegoat. The love of Mr.Michael on his wife was fading as the condition worsened. He acted asthough his wife would never recover from the comatose.
Onthe other hand, the parents were loving and caring. They weresupporting and willing to stay by their daughter’s side for quite along time without giving up on her. Álvares & Fernandes (2016)add that even great politicians like President Bush also saw the needto respect Terri’s right to Life. The parents were correct anddeserved much credit for asking questions. They treated the tragiccondition with much care seeking medical and legal help to save theirdaughter.
Ialso believe that Michael had right to state that the time has comefor her to die since he did not have the discretion to make acritical decision on his wife’s death. He made a mistake forconsidering her health condition to be poor and claiming that moneywas being spent on an already dead person. His stand that he lovedher was debatable owing to his remarks (Pyle, 2015). His love, asclaimed, would be demonstrated by accepting his wife’s fate and beready to take care of her even if she became disabled afterrecovering from the coma.
Hisdecisions to persuade the courts to remove her from the lifesavingmachine created a bad notion among the public (Dulworth, 2013).People got an idea that those who have brain problems and take timeto recover in addition to utilization of lots of government resourcesshould be allowed to die. The woman should have been given a littlemore time and try to communicate and state her will with regard toher life. The right that supports the disabled people in America whocannot speak and may wish to attend medical treatment to have someonetalk on their behalf, probably a close family member without interestin the death, should have been applied in this scenario. Rohlinger etal. (2015) state that Terri’s parents were the closest her sinceher husband had exhibited interest in her wealth. They had strongfeelings and affection for their daughter, and nothing would breakthe bond that existed between them and her.
Ethically,his actions were also despicable. Depriving someone food and wateramounts to torture (Álvares & Fernandes, 2016). Terri was onlybeing kept on a machine and trying to improve her chances ofsurvival. Ethics dictate that such patients should not be exploitedas result of their vulnerability. Since there was no prognosisindicating nil chances of survival, Michael erred in pushing for herdeath.
Inmy opinion, the parents were correct. Everyone is entitled to life,and no one should be denied that irrespective of his/her condition.One should not be denied intensive support in an attempt tofacilitate a slow death. The actions of Michael were less appealingand should have been rebuffed by everyone including the courts. MaybeTerri would have lived some more years and be able to talk. The casealso demonstrated that the family bonds might be stronger than onescreated through such means as marriage.
Álvares,C., & Fernandes, A. (2016). Giving voice to the patient invegetative state: biopolitical intersections of discourses on humanlife and female body. CECS-Publicações/eBooks,69-83.
Dulworth,S. (2013). freedom of choice at the end of life: patients` rights ina shifting legal and political landscape: from Schiavo to deathpanels: how media coverage of end-of-Life issues affects publicopinion. NYLSch. L. Rev.,58,391-931.
Pyle,C. (2015). TerriSchiavo`s right to die: an overview of the euthanasia movement intwentieth century america(Doctoral dissertation).
Rohlinger,D. A., Vaccaro, C., Naiman-Sessions, M., & Mauney, H. (2015).Individual claims-making in the Terri Schiavo case. SocialCurrents,2(4),361-376.
Schuster,M. L., Russell, A. L. B., Bartels, D. M., & Kelly-Trombley, H.(2013). “Standing in Terri Schiavo`s shoes”: The role of genre inend-of-life decision making. TechnicalCommunication Quarterly,22(3),195-218.