Case: Bush v. Schiavo. 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004)
Facts: Theresa Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest on February 25, 1990 which caused her to be in persistent vegetative state for eight years. Her husband (plaintiff), Michael Schiavo, petitioned to terminate the prolonging life procedures, which meant going against Theresa's parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, by removing her nutrition and hydration tubes that will also discontinue Theresa's life. Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care since 1990; by 1996, Theresa's CAT scans showed abnormal structure, her cerebral cortex was gone and was replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Over the span of a decade, Theresa's brain was starting to deterioraet due to the lack of oxygen that it suffered
…show more content…
Both Michael and the Schindlers presented valid evidence that issued extensive written order that would authorize the discontinuance of Theresa's artificial life support. This issue required the Court to decide the "constitutionality of a law" and after considering the arguments of the parties, the constitutional issues raised. This procedural history is important because it provides backdrop to the "Legislature's enactment of the challenged law" and separation of powers. However, the procedural history of the Governor's assertion that chapter 2003-418, Laws of Florida, was passed to protect the due process rights of Theresa and other individuals who had the same conflict as she did. After the trial, the court found the evidence convincing and came to the conclusion that if Theresa were competent and conscious, she too, would probably cease the prolonging life procedures if it were her own decision. Although the court came to this decision, the Second District explained Theresa's medical conditions that she is technically not asleep and is it important to understand that being in persistent vegetative state does not simply mean being in a coma. She has cycles of apparent
Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. 5. Ruling and Reasoning Chief Justice Rehnquist was the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the court. He reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician-assisted suicide symbolized
Wanglie Would have desired, there was no reason to doubt her family on that point, but whether the continuation of ventilator support and gastrostomy feeding were among the reasonable medical alternatives that should have been available to Mrs. Wanglie or her surrogate decision maker, whoever that might be. The question, really, was whether the provision of this kind of treatment in this kind of case was outside the limits of medicine and, thus, beyond her power of choice. Mrs. Wanglie’s healthcare providers should have argued that medical practice simply did not include providing ventilator and gastrostomy feeding under circumstances of this case, and that not surrogate decision maker should be able to choose this option”
CULTURE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES Martina Fernandez is a 65-year-old Hispanic woman who has had diabetes for 42 years. She is admitted to the hospital with extreme circulatory deficiency and evidence of early gangrene of the left foot. After speaking with her family members, she decides to go ahead with a below-the knee amputation. Following surgery, she had a stroke and the nurses gave her medications to dissolve the clot. As the day progressed, she got progressively worse; none of the medication seems to be working.
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
She is transferred to a long-term care facility for intravenous antibiotics, ventilator weaning, and rehabilitation (Prizio, n.d.). Annette’s goals by
Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
The Death with Dignity Act (DWDA), which allows terminally-ill patients to request physician-assisted suicide, was first introduced in Oregon in 1997. The basic premise of the law is that terminally ill patients, with no outside help, should be able to choose the right to end their life. Since then a few more states have the DWDA or an similar law in their state; an ongoing debate is going on to make the act legal across the nation. The Death with Dignity act allows the individual’s request to die to be acknowledged by the state. Though various of groups and people have spoken against this act, Oregon, with close to two decades of experience with the law, has shown that it can work well even when faced with backlash from the public because
The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant. Illinois v. Gates In Illinois v. Gates, law enforcement received a letter (that was anonymous) stating that the Gate family was in the drug transporting business, and operating between the states of Florida and Illinois. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered that Gates had made the purchase of an Air Line ticket, traveling to Florida.
The Court has to come face to face with the claim that the administration of death, regardless of the offense, is a cruel and unusual punishment, is morally unethical for the government to be conducting, and is a violation of the Constitution. Aside from the fact that death is not only a severe punishment because of the amount of pain and its irreversible finality, the
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
57. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990): Cruzan, in a vegetative state, could not make life decisions for herself and was brain dead so her family attempted to end her life support. The hospital would not allow her to do so because Missouri State law required court approval before terminating life support. Because there is no guarantee that family will always make decisions with best interests at heart in addition to the fact that the Missouri policy was designed to save lives, the SC upheld Missouri’s
In Terri Schiavo’s case an act utilitarianist would consider how much pain she was in, if any, and would consider euthanizing her if it meant she will not be in anymore pain. However, they would also look into how much the action would affect her family. Overall, they would consider euthanasia as it would result in the least amount of suffering for everyone concerned and allowing the current situation to continue would cause enormous pain and anguish. For 15 years Terri Schiavo was in a state where she could not live up to her full potential, she was not really living. A rule utilitarianist would not consider euthanizing Schiavo even in the greatest of circumstances because, it would cause more harm than good.
Another significant question in this case is whether Dr. Kevorkian had the right of “playing God” by assisting people in dying when they wanted to instead of letting nature take its course. This last legal issue focuses on finances because should relatives to a terminally ill person have to reduce their quality of life by taking money out of their own pocket to pay for the extremely expensive cost of life support of their loved one if they are in pain and in a vegetative state not really living life? All these legal issues are present everyday with the large number of individuals on life support which affects the loved ones of these ill people, and the government on having to make laws to better
Brittany Maynard has been fed up with the government making medical decisions for her and patients in the same situation as her. This is what was on her mind “How dare the government make decisions for terminally ill people like me. Unfortunately, California law prevented me from getting the end of life option I deserved. No one should have to leave their home and community for a gentle death.” She has set things right for terminally ill patients in California.