Clifford Mattis 993136094 1/24/2014 Schivo and McMath The Terri Schivo and Jahi McMath cases are

two very prominent examples of public disagreements over the definition of death. In Terris case, she was declared to be in a permanent vegetative state, while Jahi, whose battle is still ongoing, has been declared brain dead. This paper will compare and contrast these two cases. Terri Schivo suffered a heart attack February 25th 1990. She was 27 years old the time. After being taken to the hospital Terri fell into a coma, and then eventually entered a permanently vegetative state. A vegetative state, is a unique condition in which the individual has no conscious but is not in a sleeplike state of coma. (Shepard, 301-2) A person in vegetative state has no consciousness and does not respond to stimuli. Once the patient has been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state for 12 months they are considered to be in a permanent vegetative state. Recovery from a permanent vegetative state is extremely, extremely rare. A person in this state is not brain dead. Michael Schivo, Terri Schivos husband, successfully sued the doctors treating Terri for infertility before her heart attack for malpractice. Over a million dollars was awarded to Terri by the courts. This money was placed in a trust in order to pay for Terris medical bills. If Terri was to be removed from life support, her husband would receive the money, if he divorced her, her mother and father would receive the money. At thus point a bitter legal battle ensued between Michael and Terris parents to decide whether or not to remove her from life support. Terris feeding tube was removed in 2005 and she passed away on March 31st.

Jahi McMath went into the hospital on December 9th of last year to have a tonsillectomy. After the operation, the girl's condition quickly deteriorated, her family said. Jahi went into cardiac arrest and the flow of oxygen to her brain was cut off. (Wells) She was declared brain dead the next day. The hospital decided to remove Jahi from life support; at this point the family acquired a lawyer and through the courts was able to keep Jahi from being removed from life support, and now, has had her moved to an undisclosed hospital in order to have her treatment continued. In Schivos case, she was in a vegetative state, while Jahi is brain dead. These two states may seem similar, but are actually quite different. Those in vegetative states still may show some brain activity and do not even necessarily need the help ventilator to keep breathing. If Jahi has her ventilator removed she would suffocate, because her brain is not even performing autonomous functions at this point. Terri Schivo, on the other hand, died from starvation and dehydration. This difference must at least partially account for the different way in which religion has become a factor in each of these cases. In Pope John Paul IIs address on the subject he remarks that a person, in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care. (Paul) The Pope considered people in vegetative states to be disabled, and even though there is little to no chance of a person in one of these states ever displaying consciousness in the future, we are obligated to provide for them as we would any other disabled person, which is a subtle and interesting point of view to take up that is not directly related to any Christian scripture. On the other hand, Jahis her family has remarked that they are waiting for a miracle from God, which brings up an interesting question, which is, what should we honor as legitimate religious

belief? It would seem that if the family could somehow show that this belief is indeed a religious one that the law would have to honor it. Unfortunately for them, it is never mentioned anywhere in any holy book that God has a propensity to bring brain dead children back to life, so we cannot point to any scripture in order to justify Jahis familiys belief. Yet since faith does not require or involve evidence, what are we to point to in order to decide what is and isnt legitimate religious belief? In both of these cases its important to consider a) what do we consider religious belief and what religious should we require our medical practitioners to honor and b) in situations where religious beliefs would force us to use medical resources in an ineffective manner are we justified in ignoring them? As both of these questions lie far outside of the scope of this paper, I will leave it up for the reader to decide.

Works Cited Paul, John, II. "International Congress: Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State:

Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." International Congress: LifeSustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2014. Shepherd, Lois L., Terri Schiavo: Unsettling the Settled. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Forthcoming; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 165. Wells, Jason. "Judge Orders Oakland Hospital to Keep Brain-dead Girl on Life Support."Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.