The Schiavo Case

In 1990, Theresa "Terri" Schiavo collapsed in her home in St. Petersburg, FL, suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest, and went into a coma. When she emerged from her coma, ten weeks later, she suffered severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen to the brain for a prolonged period of time. This left Terri in a vegetative state where she did not demonstrate a constant cognizance of herself or surroundings.One year later, Terri was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). In 1998, Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, petitioned to the courts to remove her feeding tube. Though Terri's parents opposed his petition, the Florida courts decreed that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and should not be kept alive. This decision was contested by all branches of government. Florida courts maintained their position that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and would want to stop life support. Her feeding tube was removed for the final time on March 18, 2005. Terri Schiavo died thirteen days later on March 31, 2005 of dehydration.

The Schiavo case is the most notorious, recent example of a conflict about issues involving end-of-life health care. Michael Schiavo was found to be Terri Schiavo's guardian. He said it would be against Terri's wishes to continue life support and she would not want her life prolonged if there was no hope for recovery; therefore, Terri Schiavo's life support should be removed. There was a lot of dispute about whether or not these truly were Terri's wishes because she did not have an advanced health care directive, such as a living will, to put her wishes in writing. However, the Florida courts found it would be Terri Schiavo's wish to remove life support because three witnesses said Terri had discussed that she would not want to be kept alive with no hope of recovery.

It is well established under Florida law that persons have a right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. Florida's law and its state constitution clearly support this right of refusal, even in the absence of a written advance directive. The law is defended by the ethical principle of autonomy that allows patients to maintain control over their bodies. This moral and legal right of physical integrity does not evaporate when patients become unable to express their wishes. Instead, the law authorizes a surrogate decision maker to step in to convey the requests of debilitated patients. As Terri Schiavo's guardian, Michael Schiavo had the right to refuse medical treatment for her. The body of United States law holds that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical treatment and may be discontinued or removed under the same conditions as any other form of medical treatment. Because the plan of care to discontinue feeding and hydration was selected, Terri Schiavo was deemed to have a life-limiting condition and was therefore an appropriate hospice referral to remove her feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic. Catholics believe that it is considered euthanasia if one refuses artificial nutrition and hydration. This sparked controversy about if the court's decision be upheld and her feeding tube removed. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush, for religious causes, interfered in a case that belonged in the courts. Most liberals believe that the Schiavo case is the perfect example that the theocratic right has taken functioning control of the Republican Party and is using it as a foundation from which to force their religious