Medical technology has had a great effect in our society today in regards to dying and death. Technology has allowed the use of certain procedures even when success or a cure is unlikely. We have now accepted the attitude that “what can be done, should be done.”

This clearly seems to be the case in Florida.

A recent Florida case has people speculating whether it is ethical to determine when death is an acceptable option. Terry Schiavo has been in a vegetative state since 1990 after a heart attack. Since then, she has been kept alive on life support and fed through a feeding tube.

Terri’s feeding tube was removed on March 18. In spite of this, lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case.

This particular family case has now risen to a political spectacle. Florida Governor Bush, President Bush and Congress accelerated the legal process and presented the federal courts to review Schiavo’s case.

However, the appeal was denied. Federal judges from both Tampa and the Supreme Court refused to intervene the ruling of a state Pinellas Circuit Court judge.

The removal of the feeding tube will cause her to starve to death.

Terri’s husband claims that his wife’s wishes were to not to be kept alive. However, Terri’s parents disagree with their son-in-law because they don’t think his concern is in Terri’s best interest, but rather his own.

Michael Schiavo is a perfect example of how controversial a “loving” husband can be. His judgment as a husband is not solely creditable because he will inherit, upon his wife’s death, a large malpractice settlement. He has also been in a relationship with another woman since the vegetative state of his wife.

However, it is a fact that if you’re married, your spouse has all control over what happens to your body whether it may be medical treatment or disposition.

The law states that you solely confide in your spouse to choose what is best for you in case of unconsciousness.

This particular law can become a really scary thing if you do not exclusively trust your significant other. Therefore, it is extremely important to know what measures can be taken in order to avoid such a controversial situation.

In the state of California, we have widely accepted a form called Advanced Health Care Directive. This form consists of four different parts. Part 1 “lets you name another individual as an agent to make health care decisions for you if you become incapable of making your own decisions or if you want someone else to make those decisions for you now even though you are still capable.”

Part 2 “lets you give specific instructions about any aspect of your health care, whether or not you appoint an agent. Choices are provided for you to express your wishes regarding the provisions, withholding, or withdrawal of treatment to keep you alive, as well as the provision of pain relief.”

Part 3 “lets you express an intention to donate your bodily organs and tissues following you death.”

Part 4 “lets you designate a physician to have primary responsibility for your health care.”

It is cases like Schiavo that shed light on issues that we should all be sitting down and discussing. Obtaining a California Advanced Health Care Directive would be a prudent thing to do just in case we are ever found in a similar situation.

It is extremely important to sit down with your loved ones and specifically list the procedures that should be taken if we are ever found in a state of unconsciousness.