Terry's Case Summary

In 1990, a 27 years old woman suffered cardiac arrest caused by potassium levels deprivation. She was resuscitated but because of oxygen deficiency, irreversible brain damage occurred. Rehabilitation efforts that included nerve stimulation therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy were unsuccessful. With diagnosis Persistent Vegetative State, she spent almost fifteen years in bed, nourished by the feeding tube. Terry died in 2005 when following the court order, her feeding tube was removed.
One of the ethical issues in Terry’s case involved a basic principle of autonomy. Terry did not leave any legal document where her wishes regarding medical treatment were revealed, nor did she appoint a health care proxy. Would Terri wish to continue living with the knowledge that until end of her life she would be bed-ridden with her basic vital function supported in an artificial way or would she prefer death? There are no clear answers to this question. Another ethical issue touches nonmaleficence principle. Did the treatment that was performed during many years improve her health or alleviate her suffering or did it hurt her? Was “Terri benefited or was harmed by dying” …show more content…
Unfortunately, she didn’t leave any legal document in which the instructions regarding her treatment were given. Furthermore, due to her medical condition, she could not express her wish regarding the life support. Her husband, Michael Schiavo (Stakeholder # 2), argued that his wife would never wish to spend her life supported by machines if the prognosis for recovery were very poor. In contrast to Michael, Terry’s parents (stakeholders #3) claimed that their daughter, because of her religious beliefs, would prefer to stay alive until God’s decision to end her life. They were sure that Terry was not in a vegetative state but in a minimally conscious state and that she had a chance for recovery of at least some of her body’s functions (Ditto, 2006, p.