Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:47:28.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics: “Family” in Advance Care Planning: The Family Covenant in the Wake of Terri Schiavo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

David John Doukas  and
Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the fifteen-year-long public saga of the Terri Schiavo case, one oftcited regrettable aspect of her health care noted in the media was her lack of advance care planning. The withdrawal of her gastrostomy tube was per the consent of her husband, Michael Schiavo, based on the substituted judgment of what she would have desired in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Her parents, the Schindlers, attempted to assert that ending treatment in her state (which they disputed as not being PVS violated her religious convictions.

Many people were upset by the protracted public scrutiny of this private matter - citing the Schindler's public angst, the indignity of Ms. Schiavo's protracted treatment, the interference of politicians, and the financial injustice of devoting so much time and money to this case. All these points are less meritorious than this simple fact: an incapacitated patient had a substituted judgment rendered by her spouse (who was not found to have a conflict of interest),with corroboration by other witnesses for this refusal, and without any compelling contradictory evidence from the once-competent patient.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Summer 2005 , pp. 372 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Crenshaw, A. B., “It Takes More than a Living Will,” Washington Post, March 27, 2005: FOI <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2623-2005Mar26_3.html> (last visited April 6, 2005).+(last+visited+April+6,+2005).>Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub L. No. 101-508, §§ 4206, 4751.Google Scholar
Doukas, D. J., “Autonomy and Beneficence in the Family: Describing the Family Covenant,” Journal of Clinical Ethics 2 (1991): 145–8.Google Scholar
Doukas, D. J. and Berg, J. W., “The Family Covenant and Genetic Testing,” American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2001): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doukas, D. J., “Genetics Providers and the Family Covenant: Connecting Individuals with Their Families,” Genetic Testing 7 (2003): 315–21; Doukas, D. J. and Hardwig, J., “Using The Family Covenant in Planning End-Of-Iife Care: Obligations and Promises of Patients, Families, and Physicians,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 51 (2003): 1155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Parker, C. M., “Camping Trips and Family Trees: Must Tennessee Physicians Warn Their Patients' Relatives of Genetic Risks?” Tennessee Law Review 65 (1998): 585–618.Google Scholar
Doukas, D. J. and McCullough, L. B., “The Values History: The Evaluation of the Patient's Values and Advance Directives,” Journal of Family Practice 32 (1991): 145–153.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Doukas, and Hardwig, , supra note 6.Google Scholar
Doukas, and McCullough, , supra note 10.Google Scholar