Final Research Paper- Conclusion

There is a need to talk about the inevitable consequence of death. We will not always agree on what to do in such tragic events, yet we do need to start an honest dialogue about what is essentially, the ultimate rite of passage.
What have we learned about life, ethics, and life-sustaining treatments from the Terri Schiavo saga? Surely the biggest lesson derived from the Terri Schiavo case is that of advance care planning and its inclusion in public discourse. Even well-drafted legislation is not always able to deal effectively with the consequences of family feuding motivated by financial, religious, and political considerations. Ultimately it is the healthcare professional’s responsibility to carefully consider the patient’s healthcare wishes and convey them in a clear and timely manner.
The Terri Schiavo case opened the door for discussion of living wills in many homes across America. Husbands and wives began talking over dinner about their own end of life wishes. People were compelled to get their living wills in order and voice their wishes to their loved ones. Though the Terri Schiavo case got Americans talking about important personal issues, it is unfortunate that Terri’s life has been memorialized not by the person she was or her accomplishments, but by her controversial and sad death.

Final Research Paper-Intro

Advances in medical technology has allowed for and contributed to an increase in human life expectancy. Physician’s prognosis’ for a variety of diseases has shifted from a poor or fatal outcome to the possibility of complete or partial recovery. The ability to prolong and sustain life can be viewed as either a positive medical advancement or an open door to a multitude of ethical issues. Prolonging the life of a patient awaiting an organ transplant or a cure for a disease is ethically appropriate, if the patient’s quality of life during that time is good. However, keeping a patient alive, using a life sustaining treatment, that has a poor quality of life or resuscitating a terminally ill patient is unethical. Determining what is considered a poor quality of life, versus an acceptable quality of life, and the use of life-sustaining treatments, along with the enforcement of advanced directives have become a powerful and controversial topics in the medical field.
These issues were exemplified in the Terri Schiavo case, in which a young woman diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, was thrown into the middle of a lengthy legal battle between her parents, her husband and the medical team involved with her care. Terri was twenty-six years old when she collapsed in her Florida home in 1990. Her treating physicians believed a potassium deficiency caused a heart attack in which Terri suffered catastrophic brain damage, resulting in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). A percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube was placed to provide nutrition and hydration for Terri. PEG tube feeding, which is commonly used as a life-sustaining treatment, was Terri’s only means of survival. Since the day the PEG tube was placed, a long and protracted legal battle ensued, encompassing Terri’s life, removal of her feeding tube, and bitter family disputes concerning her quality of life. In essence, the case turned into a legal battle between Terri’s husband, the medical professionals involved in her care, and Terri’s parents. Throughout the drawn-out legal proceedings, that lasted more then a decade, Terri lay in numerous long-term care facilities, possibly in pain and discomfort, possibly pain-free and comfortable, yet with a very poor prognosis (Breier-Mackie 293).

Reference:

Breier-Mackie, Sarah J. PhD, RN, APRN. “PEGs and Ethics Revisited: A Timely Reflection in the Wake of the Terri Schiavo Case.” Gastroenterology Nursing. 28 (2005): 292-297.