Analytical Research
You have been tasked to develop an in-service education product concerning end of life decisions. Your instructions are to base your analysis on the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Research this, then write an analytical research paper. Be sure to include the following information in your paper. What were the facts and court holding in the Quinlan case? What law(s) did the judge rely upon to support his decision? Analyze the hospital’s and the parent’s actions and beliefs, supporting one or the other. Assignment help – Discuss the end of life issues (legal and ethical) involved in the case to support your defense of either the medical center or parents. Consider these issues: autonomy (self-governance), justice, right to die, the need for an advanced directive, living wills, and powers of attorney. Don’t assume the reader is knowledgeable about these issues. Define them and discuss them to support your position in the paper. Do not use the first person.

You can use this resource to create an outline and organize your paperh: ttps://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/658/ Additional Resources:
● GAO Report Regarding Federal Oversight:https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669906.pdf
● AG Office Directives:http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Health Policy Documents/adirective.pdf

Analytical Research
The right-to-die as an Act backed up by the Constitution is slowly on the increase across most American states to determine the fate of those who are terminally ill (Waimberg, 2015). Autonomy, which is the self-governance of individuals to make decisions for themselves, is usually impossible for such patients. Their justice can, therefore, be relied upon powers of attorney, living wills, or advanced directives. In case a person does not have the desire to write their living will – a document stating their wishes if they are terminally ill – they can decide to select a loved one to make such choices for them. The chosen individual is then granted a power of attorney to represent the decisions of the individuals. However, there are cases where patients sign a contract stating the actions the hospital should take if they are not able to return to their healthy life. These instructions are defined as advanced medical directives. All these actions are legally recognized and support hospitals in conducting right-to-die procedures. However, the right-to-die is still a debated field by both legal and ethical professionals.
The Quinlan case is one that made an impact on the right to die decisions. One lady, on 15th April, 1975, by the name of Karen Ann Quinlan, was twenty-two years old when she attended a party whose occurrences led to her coma. According to reports, Miss Quinlan had not eaten anything for two days, and while at the party, she ingested alcohol and valium – a combination that took a toll on her body (Long, 2008). Moments into the party, she felt unwell, and her friends took her to rest at her home. A few minutes later, they noticed that she was not breathing and had to call for specialized help. However, at that moment, no relief could pull her out of her unconscious state. Quinlan was then taken to the Newton Memorial Hospital, where she was admitted and later moved to Saint Clare’s hospital. Unfortunately, she remained in her coma since her brain had suffered severe damage during the moments she failed to breathe. The once vibrant lady was now in what was referred to as a persistent vegetative state – a condition where a patient is unaware of their surrounding for more than four weeks. When she was admitted, Quinlan weighed 52kgs, but over several months in a coma, she lost 36 kg (McFadden, 1985). Her condition was only getting worse, but her respirator doctors were determined to saving her life.
It was then that the legal battle pioneered by her legal guardians started to ensue. Her parent requested the ventilator to be disconnected, but the hospital denied their requests since they would be taking part in the homicide. There was a need for the parents together with the hospital to take up the case with the law courts to get permission for the removal of the ventilator. It was on 12th September, 1975 that her parents filed a suit to end the sufferings of their daughter (Long, 2008). They claimed that extraordinary means we’re being taken to prolong her life. Being a catholic, her parents contested that Quinlan did not wish to have drastic measures taken to ensure she continued living, especially in pain (McFadden, 1985). However, Judge Muir of the New Jersey Superior Court declined their request since the doctors were not sure if the practice was a medical or judicial one. However, on 31st March 1976, Quinlan’s parents appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which granted them their request under the right to privacy.
Three laws shape the decision of the judges when dealing with the Quinlan case. The right to religious freedom is granted to each American under the First Amendment, the Eight Amendment fights for the protection against unusual and cruel punishment, and lastly, the right to privacy as per the Constitution (Long, 2008). The first two laws considered whether the religious beliefs of Quinlan served as a basis for her right-to-die. Since the Constitution granted every citizen the right to choose their religion and worship freely, it was difficult to determine if these rights extended to death and of they served as grounds for the right-to-die (McFadden, 1985). Furthermore, the court also considered the protection against unusual punishment for the case of Quinlan. Even though this right was used mostly for criminal punishment, the judges had to consider it since the parents used it to contest for their daughter’s death. As per the parents, Quinlan was in intense pain, and the means to keep her alive were extraordinary. However, the court failed to consider these please and overruled their case during the Superior Court hearing.
Despite the first two laws having a lesser impact, the right to privacy was mostly considered during the Supreme Court case as a determining factor in the ruling. Based on the Griswold v. Connecticut case and Roe v. Wade, the weight of the Quinlan case became considerable. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the right to privacy was contested for married couples and the use of contraception. It was decided that the matters that go on between couples in secret should never become of State Interest. Roe v. Wade was a significant case in the history of law in America since it was then that the right to abortion was granted (Long, 2008). Based on these two laws, the judge’s decisions were more inclined to support the parents since every American deserved the privacy stated in the Constitution. Quinlan’s parents claimed that the extraordinary care of their daughter interfered with her privacy since she was experiencing bodily invasion all the time. Procedures such as feeding tubes, antibiotics, and round the clock nursing care meant that Quinlan’s privacy was invaded all the time. Thus, the State’s Interests were bypassing the interests of the affected individual since her condition was getting worse by the moment.
End of life issues is still hotly debated to date on both legal and ethical terms even after the Quinlan case. The hospital had a tough time siding with the parents, which is understandable. Any reasonable person would understand the tough position of the medical center if they were given a chance to decide. The doctors were right to refuse the parent’s requests since they were acting as per set protocols (Long, 2008). Legally, they were not allowed to remove the ventilator of any person who did not meet the brain death criteria. Even if the parents wanted justice for their daughter, the hospital would have been seen as unjust and would have faced litigation. Furthermore, there was no signed autonomous agreement or advanced directive by the patient to end their life in the case of such turn of events (Ciurczak, 2009). It would have been unethical and unprofessional for the hospital to go against the set organizational beliefs. While the actions of the hospital were decided upon by company policy, the actions of the parents were driven by their emotions towards their daughter. As Quinlan’s attorney-in-fact, the father represented their daughter’s wishes based on their religious beliefs. Their case, however, was weak since the affected had not directly appointed the father as her attorney-in-fact.
In conclusion, the right-to-die is a scenario that means families will be faced with the dilemma of making hard choices for their loved ones. The case of Ann Quinn is an example that serves the debate behind the right to die. Decades later, her argument is used as a basis to define life and death when it comes to patients who may never recover from brain damage. While some may state the scenario as unethical, some people strongly believe in the ability to free their loved ones from more pain and suffering. Hospitals and law courts alike are constantly debating these cases to determine who is granted the right-to-die. While hospitals are mandated to act according to the law, it becomes difficult for family members to understand why they cannot give justice immediately to the affected. Thus, advanced directives, living wills, and powers of attorneys are increasingly becoming popular to finalize the decision on patients. More States are currently passing the right into their Constitution to allow terminally ill patients to receive assisted suicides. The right to privacy has been used by defendants to persist on such grants to enable the release of their loved ones. However, it is still unclear whether the practice is legally or ethically right.
References
Ciurczak, S. (2009). Powers of Attorney and Living Wills: Which is Right for you? Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/powers-of-attorney-and-living-wills-which-is-right-for-you
Long, T. (2008). June 11, 1985: Karen Quinlan Dies, But the Issue Lives On. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2008/06/dayintech-0611-2/
McFadden, R. (1985). Karen Ann Quinlan, 31, Dies; Focus of ’76 Right to Die Case. The New York Times . Retreived from https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/12/nyregion/karen-ann-quinlan-31-dies-focus-of-76-right-to-die-case.html
Waimberg, J. (2015). Does the Constitution protect a ‘right-to-die’? Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution-protect-a-right-to-die

Published by
Essays
View all posts