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?
Because these cases are totally different. They took Quindlen off a respirator, and she was able to keep breathing, so they let her live.
They did not starve her to death because her quality of life was supposedly too low.
"...The lapse of time between the various offenses and the indictment of defendant on July 27, 1967, is considerable but is adequately explained by the record. The murder weapon in each case was unique, insulin. The deaths of each of these victims were initially attributed to causes other than a criminal agency. Suspicion of insulin and of defendant as the person administering the insulin was not aroused until the death of Zella in 1956. It was not until years later, after much painstaking and persistent investigation by law enforcement officers, and the discovery of advances made in {Page 3 Cal.3d 621} medical knowledge and techniques, that sufficient evidence could be accumulated to charge defendant with these deaths. Unfortunately, by then other of defendant's victims had lost their lives. This is the only known reported case of murder by insulin poisoning in the United States. Only one other, reported world-wide, occurred in England in 1956. ..."
"...Dr. Grace Fern Thomas, a psychiatrist and an expert in insulin shock therapy, and director of the insulin shock department at the time defendant was at Camarillo, testified as to the procedures on the ward. A precise dosage of insulin was measured for each person at a particular time. At a specific level that patient would go into shock in approximately two hours after the injection. Patients do not progress at the same level. Careful watch must be kept of the pulse, color, blood pressure, general condition, and neurological signs, such as pupillary changes and body motions. When a patient is going into progressive stages of coma he sweats very profusely and breathes very heavily. Saliva is secreted in large amounts, mucous flows freely and mixes with the saliva, and the patient must be carefully watched, turned, or assisted so that he does not aspirate the fluid into his lungs. Otherwise bronchopneumonia may develop, leading to death. The gag reflex and the cornea reflex are lost. Convulsions may occur, and medication is given to prevent this. The extremities may stiffen. At a relatively deep level of coma the Babinski test (scatching the sole of the foot in a certain manner) will cause a reflex known as the Babinski response (toes fan out). The patient must be brought out of the coma within 10-15 minutes thereafter. This is done by administering glucose through gastric tubes, and if this is not effective, glucose is administered intravenously to raise the blood sugar. If the brain is deprived of blood sugar for a prolonged period irreversible brain damage and death may result. As soon as a patient is fed glucose he awakens and is hungry. Only regular insulin was used in the ward because it was the only insulin where the time of coma could be calculated for therapeutic use. Injections began with small doses, very gradually increased over a three-week period..."
I think a liberal woman judge could have equally gotten you disgusted. Don't rely on only men to let you down or to make you afraid.
HILLARY!!!!!!!!
This statement is inane.
Well, then we can let Congress make your life and death decisions for you. As for me, I want no part of it.
You are misrepresenting the Church's doctrine that you link to. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is ever permissible to starve someone to death because they have low quality of life.
You are confusing Terri's case with that of someone who is terminally ill, and for whom consuming food can only heighten excruciating pain. The two cases are very different.
Congress made strictly a life decision, despite your effort to (I'll be polite) embellish it.
That's not true. You didn't read the link I posted from the Council of Bishops. Read it carefully. I found at least two instances in which Terri qualified.
They also mentioned, not that this pertains to Terri, but if the burden of a feeding tube became too expensive it was permissable.
I was quite shocked at just how many instances there were that made it permissable to let a patient die from starvation.
Are you serious? These other cases were women who were very nearly brain dead, unresponsive, Terry is not.
Catholic teaching condemns as euthanasia "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated."...
The harsh reality is that some who propose withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from certain patients do directly intend to bring about a patient's death, and would even prefer a change in the law to allow for what they see as more "quick and painless" means to cause death.[13] In other words, nutrition and hydration (whether orally administered or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not because a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is not dying (or not dying quickly) and someone believes it would be better if he or she did, generally because the patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low "quality of life" or as imposing burdens on others.[14]...
...An unconscious [in the context, PVS is mentioned] patient must be treated as a living human person with inherent dignity and value. Direct killing of such a patient is as morally reprehensible as the direct killing of anyone else.
It's not permissible to remove the tube in order to directly cause death. Period. That is what is going on in this case, because Terri is not dying of anything except deprivation of nutrition and water. There are tough cases, but this one is black and white for Catholics.
This is in the Catholic Conference of Bishops official policy as linked earlier:
Since the best current medical opinion holds that persons in the persistent vegetative state (PVS) are incapable now or in the future of conscious, free human acts, these moralists conclude that, when careful diagnosis verifies this condition, it is not obligatory to prolong life by such interventions as a respirator, antibiotics, or medically assisted hydration and nutrition.
While this rationale is convincing to some, it is not theologically conclusive and we are not persuaded by it. In fact, other theologians argue cogently that theological inquiry could lead one to a more carefully limited conclusion.
You did read it, didn't you? I hope you're just confused and you're not doing this on purpose to confuse people.
Yes, getting turned every 4 hours is a great life.
I will agree that there is debate amongst moral theologians. But Church teaching holds that food and nutrition however they are delivered are to be considered ordinary care. Yes there are situations where tube feeding meets the criteria for being overly burdensome to the patient or of ceasing to have any benefit to them. This is usually in the case of terminal patients in the end stage of their illnesses. Also the tube can not be withdrawn with the intent that its withdrawal will be the direct cause of the person's death. I am sorry if I got snippy. It has been a long day and my heart is sore over this whole matter. I trust you will have a blessed and safe Easter holiday.
The difference is that neither of the other women had a brother who went to the local Right to Life group and said my sister is being murdered by her husband.
And at this point how do we know that that spark of God is still in Terri, or has she just become a biological machine that can be maintain in a workable if damaged condition indefinitely?
Add to that a lawyer with whacky ideas of death, and a judge with a questionable agenda who blocks all attempts of the parents.
And you as well. Happy Easter.
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.