For our Bioethics unit we were given a controversial topic involving a discipline of biology. My partner and I received the Terri Schiavo case. We were then tasked with creating a glogster, both of ours are located below, and then presenting our subject to the class. We were required to stay unbiased in our work and not present our opinion.
The Terri Schiavo case was very interesting to me because it was a bioethical event I was unfamiliar with. A few of the other cases given such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Jack Kevorkian case, and Dolly the sheep, I knew about but with this particular assignment I was able to learn something new. The entire case was a court battle waged between Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, The Schindlers. There were 14 appeals and many petitions and hearing spread out over a 15 year time period. (1990-2005) I did not describe every court appearance and every legal action in our presentation because many were repetitive. I included, what I thought to be, the most important parts of the case. In 1990 Terri collapsed in her home from what was thought to be a potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder called bulimia. Her eating disorder was kept secret from her family and friends leading some to believe that her husband was responsible. Her parents thought that Michael had tried to strangle Terri but there has been no evidence to show such a hypothesis to be true. When she collapsed oxygen was cut off from her brain for too long, resulting in her entering a persistent vegetative state. A persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a condition where the has person has lost cognitive functions, awareness, but still maintain non-cognitive functions like a heartbeat and breathing. A legal battle that lasted 15 years occurred between her husband and her parents, which finally ended in March, 2005 when Terri died from starvation and dehydration after having her feeding tube removed two weeks later.
The Terri Schiavo case was important to bioethics because it was one of the first popular cases that involved a patient in a persistent vegetative state. There was a few cases before the Schiavo case but they were not as popular as this one. This case was so popular because of the 15 year legal battle and the numerous petitions and activists that got involved. After the case, many people questioned whether or not the government and courts had the right to step in and decide her fate when the choice was originally left to her husband. After the judge ruled that Schiavo's feeding tube was to be removed for the last time, George W. Bush tried to find a way to overturn the ruling using the authority of Congress. A poll was taken after this was found out and most people found this unconstitutional. This case inspired pro-life groups and disability rights groups in the years following as well.
The bio-ethical debates that this particular case poses involves the right to die and when life begins and ends. These two questions have been been talked about at the same decimal level for decades. In this case, Terri's husband is trying to honor her wish to not be kept alive unnaturally which she verbally commented on before her incident and her parents who want to keep their daughter alive. Terri's parents refused to believe that their daughter was essentially brain dead and wanted rehabilitation for her, despite the fact that her doctors and nurses said there was no hope. Her parents went on to say,"where there is life, there is hope."
After reading this far I am guessing that you already have an idea of what side of the argument you reside on. Before you close your mind off to the opposing argument, I ask you to try and put yourself in each sides shoes. I know how hard this can be, close mindedness can be explained neurologically though which I will now attempt to demonstrate. I read this in a book entitled, Fringe-ology, this book was about a man trying to explain the unexplainable. Normally, I hold no respect for psuedoscience or parapsychology because they aren't real sciences and have little to no empircal evidence, but this book was different. The author explained that as humans our brains interpret a threat on world views the same way it would process a threat on our lives. Basically, if I were to tell you that your life philosophies were incorrect, you would become furious with me (pretty obvious). Everyone experiences this, it is part of the human condition and we cannot help it. Our amygdala, the center of emotional reactions, was once used by early humans while hunting to quickly decide if the shadow they just saw was a predatory animal or simple grass blowing in the wind. I am not entirely sure on the whole process and correct me if I am wrong. In today's world, we use the amygdala slightly different since many of us are not being hunted by big cats. Now that you know why you may get angry when someone tells you that you are wrong, try and change your way of thinking to better understand the other side. View our glogs below and decide for yourself who you think was right. Afer reading, take part in the poll found on the right side bar. Thanks for reading!
-Kyle-
By Dominique By Kyle
Sources:
http://www.terrisfight.org/
http://www.nndb.com/people/435/000026
http://www.wnd.com/2005/03/29516/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
^(used as a reference for other sources, check footnotes)
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/assisted_suicide.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1734190/pdf/v031p00376.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment