The direct harm the other individual ultimately determines the rightness or wrongness of the individual's actions and decisions.
Applied in the Schiavo case, deontology then considers the decision to deprive Schiavo of the feeding tubes that sustains her life as not a permissible act. It is true that with Schiavo's death, both her husband and family will not be aggrieved or directly harmed with her death; instead, both parties will feel relief with the eventual decision to 'end' Schiavo's physical suffering. Her death will not cause any detriment to the lives of her husband and family, making Schiavo's death ethical, to the extent that it relieved Schiavo from the physical suffering she experiences, and her family from worrying about her condition and the continuous financial burden they experienced as a result of her prolonged hospitalization. However, despite these arguments, the decision to discontinue her life support was made by her family -- thus rendering the decision as a violation of Schiavo's right to determine her own fate and a disrespect for her autonomy as an individual, whether she is capable of mobility and human interaction or not.
Utilitarianists, meanwhile, would subsist...
Both sides of the Terry Schiavo case wanted to make the most morally correct decision. The side in favor of terminating life support assumed that Terry Schiavo herself would not have wanted to live indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state, especially given the financial and emotional burden placed on her family and society. The side in favor of terminating life support also assumed that had Terry been able to speak
Brophy Case Study The unfortunate case of Paul Brophy should immediately remind people of the very similar case of Terry Schiavo and how that case ended up. Indeed, Mr. Brophy is in a persistent vegetative state due to an artery bursting in his brain. His life can technically be maintained through a feeding tube and other medical equipment but he is not "terminal" in the usually used sense of the word
Terri On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered from severe brain injury. She could no longer do anything for herself and was without an attorney. Her husband named Michael Schiavo was her legal guardian. Due to brain damage, Ms. Schiavo did not have the ability to swallow and was feed through a feeding tube. During that same year, she entered into a persistent vegetative state (PVS). As years passed, Mr.
Right to Die Cases The very public, legal and ultimately political saga of Terri Schiavo brought not only national but international attention to the right to die issues and echoed a similar battle which took place some fifteen years earlier concerning Nancy Cruzan. In "Cruzan, by her Parents and Co-Guardians v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261,' the United States Supreme Court concurred with the lower court's ruling on June
Terry Schiavo died, she had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than ten years. Her husband claimed that Terry "wouldn't have wanted to live in her condition," and had legal guardianship over his wife in her condition ("Terry Schiavo Has Died," 2005). Although Terry's parents' feelings are valid and they do matter, it is clear that the courts made the right decision. There are many reasons why
Terri Schiavo suffered an acute brain injury that left her in a persistent vegetative state, with almost no chance of recovery. Eight years later, after numerous efforts to rehabilitate her, her husband, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Florida court to remove her feeding tube, thus allowing her die. Although he was her legal guardian, Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, argued that she was still conscious and that letting her
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now