Terri Schiavo's Easter Sunday

This is one for the books.

If the issue were a local concern at the Philippine General Hospital, it would reported in a BioEthics Symposium at the Science Hall to this tune:

The patient is T.S., a 41 y.o. female, American, married with sensorium in a persistent vegetative state. She has been in this condition 15 years prior after sustaining brain damage (specifics unknown) probably secondary to anoxia following momentary cardiac arrest due to a chemical imbalance. She has been nutritionally maintained on a feeding tube since then, with a poor prognosis as to total recovery.

Two years prior, her feeding tube was removed for six days but reinserted upon legal intervention. Nine days prior, legal orders necessitated the removal of her feeding tube, and she has not received any solid or liquid intake since then.

Then the discussants in the bioethics forum would proceed with answering questions to the tune of the following:

1) Assuming that the neurologic diagnosis of the patient's consciousness is accurate, should the patient have been maintained on a feeding tube since day 1 of her brain damage?

2) Was a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) option given to the family 15 years prior, and what was the family's informed choice?

3) Given that the legal guardian is Michael Schiavo, the patient's husband, who should the attending physician consult with regarding options as to the patient's medical condition - her husband or her parents (the Schindlers)? Take into account the circumstance that the patient has no living will.

4) Knowing that the patient will die of dehydration and malnutrition shortly after withdrawal of the feeding tube, is it ethical to do so?

The concepts of Beneficence, Non-maleficence, etc. will then come in. I'm not an expert on these things, but one thing I remember that is part of a physician's code of ethics is this concept:

Primum non nocere. First, do no harm.

This one's for the lawyers too. Knowing that in the Philippines a rabid Medical Malpractice Bill is in the works, how would Philippine society in general (with special mention to the local media) treat this case if it happened within the archipelago?

Know also that a recent attempt by the patient's religious counselor to give her the Holy Eucharist (on account of today being Easter) was denied. Claims were then aired that the denial of this sacramental act was a violation of religious freedoms, it being known that Terri Schiavo is a Catholic.

Even our ailing Pope John Paul II has given his say on this, and it is safe to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has thus adopted his pronouncement: even patients in the persistent vegetative state have the right to hydration and nutrition.

Too many questions, so little time to ponder.

----------------------------
Addendum (April 1, 2005):

Terri Schiavo passed away recently. She was allowed to receive a drop of consecrated wine (Blood of Christ) a few days before, but a host could not be given to her because her mouth has so dry.

Details: Terri Schiavo Dies but Feud Continues

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman who spent 15 years connected to a feeding tube in an epic legal and medical battle that went all the way to the White House and Congress, died Thursday, 13 days after the tube was removed. She was 41.