The cases of Terri Schiavo and Jahi McMath are among the most publicized instances of ethical and legal debates over the end-of-life question. Both cases have a lot in common, but the Jahi McMath case introduces several new factors that offer further insights into the ethical as well as legal sides of the issue.
Terri Schiavo has entered a persistent vegetative state (PVS) as a result of a cardiac arrest. After several years, her husband has made a decision to remove her feeding tube. The decision was countered by her parents, who challenged her diagnosis. The legal struggle lasted for seven years until the tube was finally removed. The case was highly publicized, which has led to the emergence of many activist groups supporting both sides of the debate.
Jahi McMath is a 2013 case which bears many similarities to that of Schiavo. In a similar manner, McMath’s parents countered the decision of the medical staff to terminate the life support and named misdiagnosis as the basis for their demand. However, one fundamental difference can not be ignored. While Terri Schiavo was diagnosed with PVS, which is a state of partial arousal, Jahi McMath was proclaimed brain dead. Unlike PVS, brain death eliminates any possibility of recovery.
Thus, while some degree of common sense is present in prolonging life support of the patient in the vegetative state, supporting a brain-dead patient is only a viable option if the possibility of misdiagnosis exists (Brain Death, 2016). The McMath family, while making an effort to challenge the diagnosis, emphasize their “belief” that their daughter is alive, which is of questionable scientific or legal value. Therefore, while certain flexibility must be present in decisions on the end-of-life care in the case of PVS, the legal system must effectively eliminate any personal and subjective judgment characteristic of McMath’s case.
The Causes behind ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was implemented to further secure the civil rights of the employees granted by the previous acts of 1866 and 1964. The causes for the implementations were the rulings of several cases, including Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) and Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989). Both cases introduced the precedent which put the employees seeking compensation for the unfair treatment at a disadvantage.
The former suggested that even despite the employer was proven to be motivated by discrimination in firing an employee, he could escape liability by proving that the same decision would have been made without the mistreatment involved. The latter implied that the employer could justify the purported mistreatment by simply presenting the business justification to the act. This placed the additional burden of proof on the plaintiff, who now needed to prove the lack of such justification. Both precedents made the process much less favorable to the employees and opened additional possibilities for justifying discrimination (Jennings, 2008).
Some influence is also ascribed to the Patterson v. McLean Credit Union case (1988), which basically successfully justified the racial discrimination by reinterpreting the wording of the 1866 Act (Jennings, 2008). The implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a little more complicated. While the causes mentioned above are applicable to it to some degree, no single cause for its implementation can be isolated. Instead, the ADA should be viewed as an amendment to the earlier Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which had discrepancies that became apparent by the late 1980s. Other than that, the ADA was prompted by the same causes and addressed the same issues as The Civil Rights Act of 1991.
References
Brain death vs. persistent vegetative state: what is the legal difference? (2016).
Jennings, M. (2008). Business ethics: case studies and selected readings. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.