Posted on 03/25/2005 5:01:12 PM PST by Wolfstar
Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed at a party after swallowing alcohol and the tranquilizer Valium on April 14, 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a persistent vegetative state.
Karen Ann Quinlan
A dispute arose between the hospital officials and Karen’s parents about whether or not she should be removed from her respirator. Karen’s parents did not want to take extraordinary means to keep Karen alive; however, the hospital officials disagreed and wanted to keep her alive. The Quinlans believed that they had the right to legal guardianship for Karen. This led to two court cases involving who should become Karen’s legal guardian.
Her family waged a much-publicized legal battle for the right to remove her life support machinery. The Quinlans lost the first court case at the U.S. Supreme Court, but were victorious in New Jersey’s Supreme Court. This decision gave Joseph Quinlan, Karen’s father, legal guardianship over Karen. As a result, the Quinlan family decided to remove Karen from her respirator and the physicians obliged.
Unexpectedly, Karen continued breathing and was moved to Morris View Nursing Home where she lived for 10 years. She passed away on June 11, 1985.
The New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling became a precedent case for ethical dilemmas involving right-to-die cases in two significant ways. First, this case led to the requirement that all hospitals, hospice, and nursing homes have ethics committees. Second, it led to the creation of advance directives, in particular the living will.
Nancy Cruzan
The way Nancy's family engraved her headstone
Like Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan became a public figure after entering a persistent vegetative state. A 1983 auto accident left Cruzan permanently unconscious and without any higher brain function, kept alive only by a feeding tube and steady medical care. Cruzan's family waged a legal battle to have her feeding tube removed. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the Cruzans had not provided "clear and convincing evidence" that Nancy Cruzan did not wish to have her life artificially preserved. The Cruzans later presented such evidence to the Missouri courts, which ruled in their favor in late 1990. The Cruzans stopped feeding Nancy in December of 1990, and she died later the same month.
Much has changed in the years since Nancy's death. The federal government passed a law requiring all persons entering a hospital in the United States be told about living wills. Most states have laws governing advance directives, durable powers of attorney and health care proxies.
Now, nearly 30 years to the day that Karen Quinlan collapsed, we have the Terri Schiavo case making headlines. In the intervening 30 years much precedent has been set and much case law has been settled in the so-called right-to-die area. Estimates are that some 30,000-35,000 people in the United States are currently in similar or identical states as Terri Schiavo, yet we do not hear about them. Life support measures -- including feeding tubes -- are removed virtually daily. Yet we do not hear about those cases. Why? Because the only thing unique about the Schiavo case is the epic family feud propelling it into the headlines.
People who so passionately argue for Schiavo to be saved have nothing to say about all the other similar or identical cases. Why? If one believes that all life must be saved, then why fight only for this single life?
Agreed, That argument has all the weight of "If it weren't for the sun, it would be night all the time."
Oh, man, Soylent Green---what a call-back---and I remember at the time thinking that 40 was SO OLD (it was 40, wasn't it?)
Remember when Abu Gharaib pictures first came out? They were all over the news for weeks and months---
What we have "hidden" in our hospices, hospitals, nursing homes, etc., could make AG look like a picnic...
I know that with new technology, the likelihood of keeping some people alive indefinitely at much expense compared to the quality of that life, but I am beginning to wonder how many are being starved out of "convenience", rather than to fulfill their wishes...
however, the difference is with living wills and medical directives, and if nothing else this case is going to do wonders for lawyers, I know everyone in my family is talking about time to get this stuff in order, there will be nothing to litigate except in cases of dispute or those odd circumstances that may not be covered by living wills and directives
Does anyone know, is Terri Schiavo getting morphine as she is being starved to death?
I suppose you have deep personal knowledge on the subject.
True. But you also now know of the many thousands of cases like Schiavo. Why her and not all the others?
The answer is clear from the many threads and talk radio discussion. People are caught up in the soap opera. It's like a reality TV show. The suspicious husband. The money. Insinuations of abuse. Desparate parents. A once-beautiful woman struck down in the bloom of youth. Epic court battles that stretch over years. Outside groups with their own agendas who latch onto the case from all sides. Even the Congress and the President trying to ride to the rescue.
The public gets to choose up sides, pour over juicy news reports, and get all emotionally charged -- not too dissimilar from sports fans, except with a case like Schiavo, the public gets an added bonus. They get to feel all self-righteous and good about themselves because they are helping to save a life or ensure a dignified death -- depending on which side one chooses.
Oh, it's a grand spectacle. And at its center is...what is at it's center? A profound truth. Terri Schiavo is not unique. One day every single one of us will face end-of-life decisions, for ourselves and our loved ones. Maybe there will be a dispute amongst our family members. Then what?
a good doctor gives you a nice dose of morphine to send you on your way quickly so you don't literally starve to death
Assisted suicide has always been unacceptible if one is a Catholic. I post the relevent catechism paragraphs.
Catechism of the Catholic Church on Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.2277 Whatever its motives or means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act of omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
When a patient is not competent to make his or her own decisions, a proxy decisionmaker who shares the patient's moral convictions, such as a family member or guardian, may be designated to represent the patient's interests and interpret his or her wishes. Here, too, moral limits remain relevant -- that is, morally the proxy may not deliberately cause a patient's death or refuse what is clearly ordinary means, even if he or she believes the patient would have made such a decision.http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutqa.htm
The court hasn't mandated it in this case either. It has complied with the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's husband/guardian. The main difference between Cruzan and Schiavo is the dispute between the relatives in the latter case.
No, actually I do not. You will provide links to all those thousands of courts cases won't you?
You believe a poll that was intentionally slanted to get the outcome it got.
Portraying a severe head injury with brain dead and a simple gravity feeding tube with life support.
You so very obviously haven't read the report. There are dozens of angles that make it okay to withhold food and hydration and Terri fits into a couple of them.
No. Quite the opposite. If someone genuinely believes in a right to life in such cases, then they have an obligation to ensure that the right is applied equally in all comparable cases. Equal protection under law.
Bingo
Be very careful with living wills.
That sword cuts both ways. It may give you control over your end but it will all so guarantee you will get substandard care.
Perhaps many are. Do you need publicity to activate your religious or moral outrage if you think removing a feeding tube is wrong?
I have known lots of Southern Baptists. They are good people and very long suffering. I have never heard of someone asked to leave before this.
Told they could not be a church leader yes but not asked to leave.
Shocked the living daylights out of me.
Yes, we will, as the huge baby boom generation moves into their senior years.
Or, since I have not seen it mentioned elsewhere on these threads, when some National Health programs refuse to dialyze patients over Age 65. Is there a moral distinction? Is it OK to allow these people to die simply because they DO have brain function left, but not enough to do something about these scandalous National Health programs in some countries?
As much as many of us may utterly despise them, only the fact that a patient _might_ have a lawyer seems to protect patients from being summarily euthanized in some circumstances.
My wife was hospitalized and seriously ill. No one there seemed to attach any significance to anything she said, or care very much about anything.
A very large floral arrangement, with a prominently displayed card that read,
Your friends at the Law Offices of Weasle, Weasle, Goniff,& Raptor"*
* It was a real law firm-Friends of ours. Name changed for obvious reasons.
Good. That's exactly what I've been hoping to do. Get people to realize that, if they really think removing a feeding tube from Shiavo is wrong, then they need to examine the entire practice. Stop letting their emotions over one case rule their heads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.