HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Respond to This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wells, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wells, A.

To the Editors:

I have been a member of AACN for several years now, and I am in a quandry about what I read in a recent editorial. I have always held AACN in high regard as a proponent of the very best in practice and policy when it comes to core issues in critical care nursing. I have often encouraged other nurses to join the organization, but after reading the editorial "The Ridiculous Mouse" (September 2005: 360–362), I am indeed contemplating whether or not I can, in good conscience, remain a member of this organization.

I am speaking specifically about comments made in the section "The Case of Terri Schiavo." Surely, the editors knew that they would touch a nerve in any prolife member of AACN by making such statements. And as I see that only one reference was used for information in this section, I can only infer by what was written that the editor(s) believe that the pro-life position is misguided. Before you make statements like that, I think it is only fair that you look at both sides of the story. Was Terri in a persistent vegetative state? Opinions on that differ. The facts are that Terri’s loving husband and guardian denied her any form of rehabilitation once he won a medical malpractice suit on her behalf in November 1992. He had her placed in a hospice even though she was not actively dying and she lived there for years without any physical therapy, with the shades drawn, no pictures, flowers, music, or any other type of stimulus was allowed in her room by order of her husband. The nurses and aides there were often berated by Michael Schiavo if they were seen putting lotion on her skin or doing range of motion exercises for her. He wouldn’t allow her to be treated with antibiotics for a urinary tract infection in 1993 even after he was told by a physician that this could easily lead to sepsis and death for Terri (his actions were overturned by a Florida state law that said she must be treated).

Is Michael Schiavo, a man who berated nurses for performing the most basic of nursing care for a helpless woman, the type of person that my AACN is endorsing? Did you not know that Michael had planned with the Schindlers to use the money from the malpractice award to send Terri to a rehabilitation facility and indeed said in court that he wanted to become a nurse so he could take Terri home and care for her? I once thought that this was a case of parents who "could not accept the medical diagnosis and prognosis." But I looked at the other side and I found out differently. Maybe the authors of this editorial should have looked at the other side, too.

If some kind of apology, admission of not telling the whole story or at the very least distancing of this organization from a man who calls himself a nurse and yet treated other nurses rudely, disrespectfully, and without any semblance of decency does not come forth, I will cancel my membership in AACN. There’s a reason Terri Schiavo lived from the time her husband cut off all her therapy until March 31, 2005. Her body was strong, even if her mind and consciousness were not. When that feeding tube was pulled, that was an act of active euthanasia. I cannot be a part of an organization that will condone and uphold this practice as the right thing to do.

Ann Wells, RN, BSN
Wilmington, NC

The Editors Reply

We would like to thank Ann Wells for her letter. Although the Editors serve at the pleasure of the Board of AACN, our opinions are ours, and not those of the organization. It is our editorial policy to try to bring critical care issues out into the open so that they can be discussed more effectively. In this vein, we do not wish to be offensive, even though our intention is to be provocative. That is why we feel it proper to publish others’ points of view, even when we do not agree with them.

The reason we presented the Terri Schiavo case was to deplore how it was used and abused as a political football, in an attempt to gain or maintain support from various groups in the electorate. More than 80% of polled persons in the community were appalled at this political involvement. It was not our intention to condone or excuse any behavior of her obviously distressed family.

The freedom to choose the way we would die exists for much less than 10% of the world’s population. Because of the ability to maintain organ systems with advanced technology, we are able to keep bodies alive when the essential "being" has gone. We realize there are those (including whole countries) who do not agree that the "being" has left when there is too little central nervous system left for a person to exist—the persistent vegetative state. Very few people do not agree that everyone has a right to life. The disagreement is over the point at which life begins and ends. Terri Schiavo’s epitaph on her grave would seem to sum up a major part of the issue.

THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

BELOVED WIFE

Born December 3, 1963

Departed this Earth February 25, 1990

At peace March 31, 2005

This Article Full Text (PDF) Respond to This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wells, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wells, A.