This assessment examines the Terri Schiavo case through the lens of medical ethics and advance healthcare planning. The analysis focuses on how a living will could have provided clear guidance for medical decision-making when patients cannot communicate their wishes. The paper emphasizes the ethical principle of autonomy and its role in ensuring patient self-determination in end-of-life care.
In my opinion, the form of an advance directive that would have been ideal in this case, i.e. when it comes to communicating Ms. Schiavo’s wishes, would have been a living will. In essence, a living will, in the words of Kirtland and Jackson (2021), could be conceptualized as “a written, legal document that spells out medical treatments you would and would not want to be used to keep you alive, as well as your preferences for other medical decisions, such as pain management or organ donation” (95). This would have been the best advanced directive option in this particular scenario owing to the fact that it would have clearly and in no uncertain terms spelt out Ms. Schiavo’s wishes about the interventions she would have desired (i.e. in as far as being kept alive is concerned) if she were to be in a state that made hear incapable of making decisions for herself. In essence, this form of advance directive would also have aligned with the key ethical principle of autonomy. This is more so the case given that it would have proclaimed Ms. Schiavo’s right to self-determination. The autonomy principle, as McLean (2009) observes, is indicative of the need to ensure that persons are allowed or empowered to make decisions that impact their lives without undue third party interference.
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.