IndexThe ethical dilemmas of Terri Schiavo's caseAutonomy vs. best interestCharity vs. non-maleficenceQuality of lifeEthical principles in end-of-life careAutonomyBeneficenceNon-maleficenceLegal and medical perspectivesLegal PerspectivesMedical perspectivesInfluence on death and dyingValue of human lifeConclusionThe case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who spent 15 years in a persistent vegetative state, has sparked a profound ethical debate on end-of-life care and the right to die with dignity. This essay aims to analyze the ethical dilemmas surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, explore how ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence can guide decision-making in end-of-life care, delve into the legal and medical perspectives involved, and discuss the broader influence of this case on the landscape of death and dying, as well as on the value of human life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Ethical Dilemmas of the Terri Schiavo Case The Terri Schiavo case was full of ethical complexities. Terri fell into a persistent vegetative state in 1990, and the resulting legal and ethical battles lasted over a decade. Major ethical dilemmas included: Autonomy versus best interests. Terri left no written directives regarding her end-of-life wishes. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, claimed that she had verbally expressed a desire not to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Terri's parents, on the other hand, believed that she would want to be kept alive. This raised the fundamental ethical question of whether one's autonomy (the right to make decisions about one's own body) should trump what others perceive as being in their best interests. Beneficence versus nonmaleficence The principle of beneficence, which requires doing what is in the patient's best interests, clashed with nonmaleficence, the principle of doing no harm. Continuing life-sustaining treatment for Terri, including artificial nutrition and hydration, was seen by her parents as a way to protect her life. However, Michael argued that it was not in his best interests, given his irreversible condition and his alleged desires. This presented an ethical dilemma regarding whether prolonging his life constituted a benefit or a detriment. Quality of Life Terri's quality of life was a central concern. He was unconscious and his medical condition was deemed irreversible. Her husband argued that continuing to provide her with life support was unworthy and contrary to his purported wishes for a better quality of life. In contrast, his parents argued that every life, regardless of its quality, was intrinsically precious, leading to a profound ethical debate about the intrinsic value of human life. Ethical Principles in End-of-Life Care Several ethical principles can provide guidance in addressing the complexities of end-of-life care, including autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Autonomy The principle of autonomy emphasizes the importance of respecting the individual's right to make decisions about his or her life and death. In cases like Terri Schiavo's, where the patient's wishes are unclear, the principle of substitute judgment can be applied. This involves making decisions based on what the patient would likely have chosen, given his or her values ​​and beliefs. Charity Charity guides healthcare providers to act in the best interests of the patient. In Terri's case, this principle was interpreted differently by her husband and parents. Michael believed that stop supporting.