De ja vu

Coastie · 03-28-2005, 06:57 PM

This entire proces with Terry Schiavo is eerily reminiscent of a similar situation in New Jersey, I believe, over 20 years ago. I cannot remember the particulars, but it dragged on forever and eventually ended up with the first living wills being drawn up by people that did not want to go through a similar process. Can anybody remember the name of the person in that incident or the particulars of what brought it on or the outcome?

vc1111 · 03-28-2005, 08:24 PM

I don't remember that case but I can promise you that most of this developed by way of families being forced to come to terms with the skyrocketing costs.

The crisis in the cost of medicine continues to this day. HMO's and PPO's may have slowed it but not by much.

If everyone had to pay for their own health insurance more people would understand the harsh reality that some have had to face, one that more will have to face in the years to come.

Californiadoctor · 03-28-2005, 08:34 PM

I may be mistaken, but I think it involved a young woman by the name of Karen Quinnlen.

Californiadoctor

Coastie · 03-29-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Californiadoctor

I may be mistaken, but I think it involved a young woman by the name of Karen Quinnlen.

Californiadoctor

Thanks Caldoc, a few minutes search found the following article which pretty well sums up the issues at the time. There are parallels here but a switch in that the family were the ones looking to end life support and being opposed by the state. Also, after she was found able to breathe on her own, the family relented and found an extended care facility to see to her day-to-day needs.

Karen Quinlan: The Beginning of the Right-to-Die Debate
Mireille Deschamps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed after drinking too much alcohol and taking in 0.6 miligram of aspirin and the tranquilizer Valium at a party in 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state." Her family began a legal lawsuit for the right to remove her from life support machinery. They succeeded, but then Quinlan kept breathing after the respirator was unplugged. She remained in a comatose state for almost 10 years until she died in 1985 in New Jersey. Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate (Munson, 2000).

At the beginning of Karen Quinlan"™s coma, her family was hopeful, but then Karen"™s condition got worst. She began to lose weight and to contract into a fetal position, until her five-foot-two-inch frame became no longer than three feet. She breathed with a respirator that pumped air through a tube to her throat. Everyone began to think that this situation was hopeless. The family believed that this treatment was too much for them to handle and that Karen definitely would not want to be kept alive in this manner (Munson, 2000).

After three and a half months that Karen had been in a coma, the family decided to authorize the discontinuance of extraordinary procedures. The next day, the doctor decided that he would not take Karen off the respirator due to moral reasons. Since Karen was twenty-one years old, the Quinlans were no longer considered the legal guardians. The family was furious and decided to call their attorney. Mr. Quinlan believed that it was God"™s will to take Karen off the respirator (Munson, 2000).

During this trial, Mr. Quinlan requested to be the legal guardian of Karen and thus would be authorized to discontinue Karen"™s life. He claimed the right to privacy, which would enable individuals to terminate the use of medical measures, even when death may result. He also appealed the clause "œcruel and unusual punishment" of the Eighth Amendment by stating that keeping Karen on the respirator against "œher will" and her family"™s will was cruel. Although these were all good arguments, the judge decided to rule against Mr. Quinlan since Karen was still medically and legally alive (Munson, 2000).

Due to the judge"™s decision, Mr. Quinlan decided to appeal this decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. This time, the court agreed with Mr. Quinlan"™s argument on the right to privacy and that whatever he decided for her should be accepted by society. This case also set aside criminal liability because death would not result from homicide since the respirator would only be removed. The court told Mr. Quinlan that the doctors at the hospital may remove the respirator. Once the respirator was removed, Karen was able to breathe without mechanical assistance. Due to this new finding, the Quinlans began to search for a chronic-care hospital, and finally a nursing home decided to take Karen under their care. Karen continued to breathe and was given nutrients and antibiotics to fight off infections. Then, she passed away at the age of thirty-one (Munson, 2000).

The main importance of the Quinlan movement is the expansion of the patient"™s "œright" to decline life-sustaining treatment. Also, it compels medical professionals to withdraw such treatment, if administered, and thus requires professional assistance for terminally ill individuals wishing to end their excruciating lives (Stevens, 1997).

Follow this link for more information on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment according to the American Medical Association.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Homepage