The Schiavo Case

The Schiavo Case

The Schiavo case had immense implications for the entire country as this tragedy had culminated into a nationwide debate that caused massive stirrings. The underlying question that prevailed was whether the feeding tube which was keeping the woman alive whose brain had been damaged and was termed to be in a persistent vegetative state should be removed or not. Various courts deliberated on the option. Even the American congress was involved. However, the major focus of the attention turned out to be the ethical issues that were raised. These ethical issues were not just limited to Schiavo but had immense implications beyond just one woman.

Different ethical issues underlined this case. A war words had ensued that kept raging for years between those who supported Terri's husband who insisted that his wife would not have desired to remain alive in this way, and her parents who wanted the tube feeding to continue. This has caused a wide debate as the American society every now and then keeps discussing this same option. The central question that arises is that if an individual's recovery cannot be hoped for, then should these nourishments be continued? Another important concern is that who should decide this?

Due to this case, the American society is faced with an ethical quandary. The biggest ethical issue arising out of this case is the battle between those who support liberty and those who support life. In America for the past many decades, the decision of the patient who wishes to discontinue medical treatment even at the cost of his or her life is respected. This is the most difficult ethical battle of all. In case a person wishes to abandon medical treatment even if he is set to die, the field of medicine respects their decision. However, doubts prevail when a person enters a vegetative state, and it is unknown what the patient would have preferred to do in such a case. Since the intention of the patient is not known, this leads to the important question of whether the guardians should be allowed to intercede on the patient's behalf and take the important decision. The battle becomes more complicated as in the case of Terri when one part of the family calls for removing the feeding tubes, while the other party insists on continuing the nourishments (Preston et.al, 2006).

When the topic of life versus liberty is being considered, then it is not merely the liberty concerning medical issues or the matter of life and death. It goes on into other matters that involve freedom and liberty on a wider scale. There are two ideas that are centered on allowing someone to say no to medical treatment. The first concept is the right of the patient to be free from any bodily intrusion that is unwanted or undesired. This means that no one including the doctor has any right to touch the patient if he or she does not want to be touched. This is a significant concept ...