The court determined that she would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures, and on April 24, 2001, her feeding tube was removed for the first time, This was reinserted several days later because her parents had challenged the removal and court had to make determination on it. On February 25, 2005 County Judge ordered the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Several appeals and federal government intervention followed, which included U.S. President George W. Bush who signed legislation designed to keep her alive. After all the appeals the court through the federal court system upheld the original decision to remove the feeding tube, then staff at the
The patient, Theresa Schiavo married Michael Schiavo in 1984 and they had six years of a normal marriage. Then in 1990, Theresa had a heart attack at the age of twenty-seven because of a potassium imbalance. She never regained consciousness until the present day because of her condition. She suffered a vegetative state all the while until her guardian decided to remove her status and euthanize her, causing her death. This is the point at which he differed with her
Knowing that her parents will force her to donate a kidney to her sister, and weary of the endless medical procedures Anna decides to sue her parents, Sara and Brian Fitzgerald, for medical emancipation, or the rights to her own body. Attorney Campbell Alexander agrees to work for Anna. Anna wins the case, and due to her sister's wishes does not donate her kidney. Kate lost the fight and later died in the hospital. From watching this film many ethical issues were evident which include the lack of autonomy and veracity.
Robert Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s father, said, “You can see it's [removing the feeding tube] taking its toll where her face is getting shallow, but she still was responsive. And talking, but with no volume, like it's very, very low” (Hannity & Colmes, 2005). Her parents also disagreed with Michael Schiavo about whether their daughter would want her feeding tube removed. Terri’s mother, Mary Schindler, stated that she believed if Terri Schiavo had ever told Michael Schiavo she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, “I don't think she was ever talking about [removing] a feeding tube. My daughter would not want to be starved to death.
The court presiding would ultimately support Terri’s husband and the removal of the feeding tube. Terri died thirteen days after her feeding tube was removed in March 2005. (Tong, 2007) Terri Schiavo 3 Ethical issues: The principle of autonomy imposes that surrogates should follow the substituted judgment standard. In this case, Terri’s husband stated that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state. By waiting a long time before making her wishes known, he ignored his wife’s wishes and violated her autonomy for many years.
During this time Michael was appointed as Terri’s legal guardian without objection from her parents. In February of 1993 Michael Schiavo and the Schindler’s began to disagree about Terri’s care and the Schindler’s attempted to remove Michael as her legal guardian (Cerminara & Goodman, 2005). In May of 1998, Michael Schiavo made his first attempt to petition the court for the removal of Terri’s feeding tube. Michael believed that there was no hope for any sort of recovery or changes in Terri’s persistent vegetative state and had stated that his wife told him that she would not want to live like that (Quill, 2005). The next several years consist of a series of court cases and appeals based on Michael Schiavo’s push to have the feeding tube removed and Terri’s parent’s insistence to keep her alive.
She was called the "unredeemed captive" not because her farther did not try to get her away from her captives, but because of the fact that she did not want to go back home. Throughout the book it talks about how John tries everything to get his daughter back. No matter what he does or says though her Indian family won’t give her up. They tried for ten years. By that time though Eunice had forgotten all of her English and already married to François-Xavier Arosen, a Mohawk man and had a made a family together.
Assignment 2 – Analysis of a Healthcare Lawsuit Case Carrie Bonds Prof Wendy Good HSA 405 December 2, 2012 List the Title and Case Citation in proper legal format Juror’s awards Waverly family $55 million in Hopkins malpractice case 2012 Baltimore City Circuit Court decision in Enzo Martinez, et al vs. John Hopkins Hospital, et al (2012) Describe the facts of the legal case chosen. The facts for this case are disturbing. Mr. Martinez and his wife, Rebecca Fielding chose to have a midwife come to their home to deliver their first born. On March 2010, Rebecca started having complications after hours of labor trying to deliver her son at home with her midwife that caused her to be rushed to the hospital in an ambulance on a stretcher. Mrs.
An example of a functional conflict was between ray and his mother. She needed him to come over and mow the lawn for the party. But ray was already too busy to help his mother. He was unavailable and he tried to explain and suggested to call his brother but he was also unavailable. He felt guilty but made arrangements to have a neighbor come by and assist his mother his mother was not enthusiastic about the idea.
After months of testing and the doctors telling my mom I might have cancer, we finally got an answer. My diagnosis was called Chronic Recurrent Multifocal Osteomyelitis (pediatrics 2005). This disease is something that is very rare childhood disease. After multiple surgeries, lots of medication and a whole year spent living at the hospital things had started to quiet down. Throughout all of this, I met so many compassionate nurses, doctors with great bedside manner and even laundry and maintenance people who would stop and say hi.