Case Study on Theresa Schiavo: 15 Years in an Irreversible Vegetative State

Introduction

Theresa Terri Schiavo was a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state for close to 15 years after collapsing in 1990 due to cardiac arrest that denied her oxygen supply to the brain. After the collapse, Schiavo was rushed to the hospital where the doctors established that she had extensive brain damage that was caused by the lack of oxygen in the brain and rendered her unconscious. In the course of her treatment, doctors attempted speech and physical therapy among other experimental therapies hoping that she would regain consciousness, but all the attempts were unsuccessful (Bernat 65). In 1998, Schiavo's husband went to the Florida court to have the feeding tube removed. His actions faced opposition from Schiavo's parents, who claimed that the measures would amount to murdering the patient and that she had the right to live until she died of natural causes. However, after a long and heated legal battle which involved federal politicians to the level of Congress and the president, the court decided that Schiavo would not have wished to continue life-prolonging measures. On March 18, 2005, the hospital complied with the directives from the court and disconnected the feeding pipe. Schiavo survived without food or water for 11 days, and on March 31, 2005, she died, bringing an end to a heated debate between pro-life activists and death with dignity supporter (Bernat 68). Thus, in this study, a detailed analysis of the case shall be made using Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism. Through the review of the moral opinions of the parties involved, one shall be able to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Simple Subjectivism is an evaluation of morality based on personal opinions. For example, by indicating that something is morally right, it means that a person approves of the actions, altitude or beliefs involved, and when one says something is wrong, they disapprove of that action or attitude. Therefore the central argument behind the theory is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that there can never be a collective agreement among the world's people due to the various views regarding moral matters (Rachels 17). Thus, when considering the simple subjectivism theory, people should more often than not tolerate other people's opinions because everyone has their truths. Looking at the Terri Schiavo's case from the lenses of Simple Subjectivism, it would mean that both Michael (Schiavo's husband) and Terri's parents were morally correct, and only their opinions differed regarding the best approach towards the matter. From the case, we can establish that Michael wished to see Terri Schiavo die with dignity, and wanted to honor her wishes (Bernat 75). Based on Michael's account, Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state and that it was morally wrong to extend her miseries while the doctors had indicated that her chances of survival were very minimal.

On the other hand, Terri Schiavo's parents felt that the move to remove the feeding tube would amount to murder because she was not practically dead, they believed that it would be appropriate for the caregivers and the family to continue taking care of her till better treatment options were available. They felt that Michael was morally wrong for suggesting that his wife would not emerge from the comma, and by doing so, the parents felt as if he was giving up on her. Therefore, this case presented a moral dilemma between death-with-dignity activists and the pro-life supporters who thought that it was not over till Terri Schiavo died of natural causes. Thus by using Simple Subjectivism, neither the parents, not the husband, was morally wrong, or they expressed were what they believed was right to the wellbeing of terry (Krason 18).

On the other hand, Emotivism theory is not fact-based, and morality can be seen as an expression of emotions which could entail an outcry against an issue. It, therefore, means that moral language is used as a means of influencing other people's behavior or expressing one's opinion towards a subject based on what they want (Rachels 15). The significant difference between the Simple Subjectivism and emotivism is that while subjectivism uses factual statements regarding the speaker's attitudes, the emotivism uses commands and expression of opinion regarding ethical situations (Nuttall 154). It can thus be concluded that emotivism avoids the concept of truth or falsity, factors that limit the simple subjectivism theory. Therefore considering the Schiavo's case, emotivism suggests that both the parents and the husband to Schiavo expressed their emotions and such expression cannot be termed either right or wrong. Also, the theory explains that it is impossible to establish the correct moral judgment, as every person involved in the case had their feelings and attitudes (Bernat 73). When analyzing Michaels decision to request the court to remove the feeding tube, it can be established that he had a rational account of why he believed it was in the best interest of Terri Schiavo, to let her die with dignity. The reason present at the court was that the patient who was in a persistent vegetative state would not have wished to live under life-prolonging conditions. Thus, he was honoring the wishes of his wife and allowing her to find rest that she truly desired. On the other hand, Terri's parents had their feelings and attitude towards the issue, where they felt that it is the responsibility of the healthy people to take care of the sick no matter their conditions.

Critically analyzing the application of emotivism in this case study, it is evident that it can explain the moral disagreement involved, despite that its explanation is not accurate. Unlike Simple Subjectivism, emotivism acknowledges the existence of a crisis, and thus a need to consider the feelings involved. By the judges deciding that Michael was right to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding pipe, the emotivism theory views this moral judgment, not as one based on facts but an expression of the court's feelings towards the subject (Krason 27). Therefore, by applying the approach, Schiavo's parents cannot be dismissed as morally incorrect for wanting to hold on to their daughter's life despite the various experts' analysis that Schiavo's condition was irreversible. However, there are two shortcomings of the emotivism about this case. One challenge presented is from the claim that people's moral judgment is an expression of attitude and not judgments. This assumption has been proved false through the analysis of the court's decisions. For example, when the court agreed to support Michael Schiavo's decision to have the feeding tube removed, they were not just expressing their opinion. The court was pronouncing what was constitutionally right and had to be implemented to end the suffering of the terminally ill patient. In this instance, emotivism fails to account for the role of reason in ethics, and instead only considers the purpose of reason within ethics. Therefore, the final ruling was not based on the expression of one's ideas or feelings towards the issue; instead, the judgment was made in consideration of various factors which the judges considered to be ethical and morally right to both Schiavo and her husband. The second assumption made by the emotivism is that moral disagreement is a disagreement in attitude. The reasoning has been proven incorrect by demonstrating that more issues were involved in the determination of the case, such as establishing what was more critical between death with dignity and pro-life ethical considerations.

Finally, when analyzing the Simple Subjectivism, it can be argued that the theory is not normative, but meta-ethical. By this, it means that Simple Subjectivism is a theory that dwells more on the nature of moral judgment (Nuttall 157). The method indicates that moral judgments have their truths, but what determines if they are true or false is based on the subject matter. Despite this, the Simple Subjectivism fails to account that people have disagreements about ethics. For example, in this case, study, the theory assumes that the opinions from Terri Schiavo's spouse and that of her parents were not really in conflict. However, this assumption is far from the truth as a result of the ethical disagreements; there was a fierce legal battle which lasted for many years. Unlike the simple subjective assumption, the two parties involved had very contrasting opinions of what should happen to Terri Schiavo. One party felt that prolonging his life was morally wrong as it extended her suffering, while the other party vehemently opposed that by saying that giving up on the sick is unethical as the patient's condition could improve someday (Krason 23). Thus, the theory cannot offer an account for the disagreement and only indicates that the moral statement reflects preferences. The explanation is wrong as people involved in this case experience actual disagreement regarding ethical issues (Rachels 13).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Schiavo case study reveals to the readers that Simple Subjectivism and emotivism are more based on the expression of feelings as the basis to define morality. While Simple Subjectivism stresses that every person is entitled to their opinion and that everyone has their truth, the emotivism maintains that moral language is not like reporting of facts, rather an expression of attitude, and it is designed to persuade the other person to change their mind regarding a particular issue. However, these two theories have their limitations when used in the analysis of Terri Schiavo's case. For example by Simple Subjectivism assuming that the opinions from the opposite sides of the incident involving Schiavo were not in moral conflict is inaccurate as it can be established that these two parties had different ideas of what was morally justifiable. Similarly, the emotivism correctly explains that the disagreements were brought about by what various parties wanted regarding the welfare of Terri Schiavo, and each party tried to change the mind of the other through persuasion. However, the theory fails to account why reasons are vital towards the decision to have the feeding tube removed. There must have been a reason why the judges agreed with Michael that the most ethical thing to do was to assist Terri to find rest, these moral judgments could not have been based purely on feelings alone as emotivism explains.

Works Cited

Bernat, J. L. "WHAT RELEVANCE TO NEUROLOGISTS IS THE TRAGIC CASE OF TERRI SCHIAVO?" Neurology Today, vol. 5, no. 5, 2005, pp. 4-5, doi: 10.1097/00132985-200505000-00003.

Krason, S. M. "Reflections on the Terri Schiavo Case." Catholic Social Science Review, vol. 11, 2006, pp. 347-351, doi: 10.5840/cssr20061131.

Nuttall, J. An Introduction to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Rachels, J. "Ethical Theory and Bioethics." A Companion to Bioethics, pp. 13-23, doi:10.1002/9781444307818.ch2.

Wiggins, D. "Ayer's Ethical Theory: Emotivism or Subjectivism?" Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, vol. 30, 1991, pp. 181-196, doi: 10.1017/s1358246100007761.