Assignment: This week u learned how to construct reasoned arguments about moral issues. Your assignment is to read the case study, analyze the situation, and answer question related to euthanasia. This assignment consists of constructing an argument and answering 2 questions related to the case study.
Part 1-Construct an argument
A-Identify which position u agree with: the husband or the parents.
B-Construct a sound argument including premises and a conclusion.
D-Your premises could address: The role media played to influence public opinion (which affects the decision made by the court) or The reasoning behind the decisions made by the court.
Part 2-In paragraph format, answer questions related to the case study.
A-If Terri Schiavo ha a living will, what affect would that have made on the outcome?
B-Is it ethical to remove the feeding tube, put back in, and then remove it again?
GRADING CRITERIA: PART 1-THE ARGUMENT
1.Your argument must consist of: Introduction paragraph providing an overview of your position, 1 paragraph per premises with supporting facts from the research, a conclusion paragraph summarizing your argument.
2. U must have a least 2 premises supporting the conclusion.
3.Your argument must be written in paragraph format, wih a least 3-5 sentences per paragraph.
4.Your paragraph must be written with complete sentences, without spelling or grammarical errors.
5.Your argument should not be a reflection of your opinion (only what u can find in the case study and your research).
PART 2-RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
1.Your responses to the question must be written in paragraph format with a least 3-5 sentences per paragraph.
2.Your responses must be complete sentences, without spelling or grammatical errors.
3.Your answer must be in your own words.
4.Cite your refences using APA style citations. (You may find it helpful to use this website to help u format your citation:http://citationmachine.net)
Use MS Word to complete this assignment. GRADING: complete the task assigned.
Part 1 is worth 65 points
Part 2 is worth 10 points (5points per question)
Terri Schiavo, a Pinellas County, Florida woman, suffered a heart attack in 1990, which left her in a “persistent vegetative state.” She was 25 years old at the time of the attack, and remained on life support 15 years.
Terri’s “persistent vegetative state” was not the equivalent of a coma, but can be defined through the fact that she was unable to eat, speak or control her body in any way. Her eyes wre open, but she was not classified as being “conscious” due to the fact that she only seemed to responded to basic stimuli, and was not aware of what was going on around her (it was later determined during her autopsy that she was blind and brain dead). Her prognosis was contentious, as some experts belived her to be unable to recover, while others speculated on the reality of her condition and her potential to improve.
Terri was married in 1985 to a man named Michael Schiavo. Due to the fact that Terri did not have a “living will,” it was Michael contention that his wife “died” 15 years ago, and that it was not her wish to have been kept alive through artifical means. However, her parents’ contention was that Terri would want a chance at life and that she was capable of some rehabilition; it was these opposing veiwpoints that led to an ongoing legal battle that lasted 12+years.
Eventually, Micheal was granted his wish in March of 2005, and Terri’s feeding tube was removed, causing her to pass away from dehydration after 13 days. It is important to remember that Terr’s life support differed from the more common forms of life support in that she was being kept alive through a feeding tube. Michael and Terri’s parents’ opposing views regarding what Terri would have wanted garnered world-wide attention including the local court system, the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Catholic Church (Terri and her parents wer catholic),, the national news media, and even the Pope himself.
During the weeks prior to the removal of her feeding tube and the days prior to her death, there were hundreds of individuals from around the world demonstrating in front of her Hospice facility:some in favor of Terri’s right to live and others who were there supporting Terri’s right to die. Toward the end of this “vigil,” the scene became almost carnival-like in nature, and the there were daily attempts by protestors to bring Terri a glass of water knowing that they would be arrested by police officers monitoring the entrance.