S: this case sparked significant controversy in the US. 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered a cardiac arrest caused by hypokalemia induced by an eating disorder. ultimately leaving her in a PVS (for 15 yrs), w/ her husband insisting to remove her feeding tube and her parents the opposite. there was no living will vegetative state is best understood as an āeyes-opened unconsciousnessā; there is a disassociation between wakefulness and awareness. While patients may appear awake, there is a lack of evidence that the upper brain receives or projects information. In November 1990, Michael Schiavo took his wife to California for experimental therapy, including placement of a thalamic stimulator implant. From November 1990 to April 1994, Terri also received physical, occupational, and speech therapy at two rehabilitation facilities.
In March 1994, 4 years after entering the vegetative state and 2 years after completion of both experimental and rehabilitative therapy, Terri Schiavo was transferred to a nursing home.
Finally, in May 1998, 8 years after Terri entered the vegetative stateāwhich was now clearly permanentāMichael Schiavo filed his first petition asking a court to allow removal of Terri's gastrostomy tube. His position was that Terri would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Terri's parents took the opposite position.
Beneficance: Removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube would potentially lead to her death, which some may argue is not in her best interests and does not serve the goal of promoting health and well-being. On the other hand, others may argue that keeping her alive through artificial means does not serve her best interests either, as she is in a persistent vegetative state and will never regain consciousness or be able to lead a meaningful life.
Non-maleficence: Removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube could be seen as causing harm, as it would likely lead to her death. However, some may argue that continuing to provide artificial nutrition and hydration is also harmful, as it prolongs her suffering and may cause additional medical complications.
Autonomy: Terri Schiavo's wishes with regard to her medical care were not explicitly stated, so the decision to remove her feeding tube involved considering what she might have wanted. Her husband and legal guardian argued that she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially, while her parents argued that she would have wanted every effort made to keep her alive.
Justice: The allocation of resources to keep Terri Schiavo alive through artificial means could be seen as unfair to other patients in need of medical care. On the other hand, ending her life could be seen as discriminatory against individuals with disabilities, as it may be based on the assumption that their lives are not worth living.
Ultimately, the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube involved considering these complex ethical considerations and weighing the potential benefits and harms to her and to society