Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Schiavo? Her case not unique: Quinlan, Cruzan and tens of thousands like it
Creighton Univ. Med. Cntr. School of Med. & multiple other sources ^ | 3/25/05

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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cruzan; quinlan; schiavo; terri; terrihysteria; terrischiavo; vegetative; vegitative
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-224 next last
To: Wolfstar

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.


181 posted on 03/25/2005 7:34:38 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
PEOPLE v. ARCHERD (1970) 3 C3d 615

"...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..."

182 posted on 03/25/2005 7:34:57 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

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!!!!!!!!


183 posted on 03/25/2005 7:35:40 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: jla
When Congress can decide who should live, it is by extension deciding who should not live.

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.

184 posted on 03/25/2005 7:36:42 PM PST by ContraryMary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Peach
There are a great many instances, including Terri's, where death by starvation is permitted within church doctrine.

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.

185 posted on 03/25/2005 7:43:02 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
Well, then we can let Congress make your life and death decisions for you.

Congress made strictly a life decision, despite your effort to (I'll be polite) embellish it.

186 posted on 03/25/2005 7:44:18 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

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.


187 posted on 03/25/2005 7:44:57 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Are you serious? These other cases were women who were very nearly brain dead, unresponsive, Terry is not.


188 posted on 03/25/2005 7:45:26 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I did read it carefully, and you are misrepresenting it.

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.

189 posted on 03/25/2005 7:58:06 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

To: The Old Hoosier

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.


191 posted on 03/25/2005 8:07:26 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Again, you are totally taking that graf out of context! The Church teaching is what I quoted above. What you quote is merely a discussion of some different theologians' views. In the very next paragraph, the views you quote are rejected:

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.

192 posted on 03/25/2005 8:16:17 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Lion in Winter
I was quite pleased that she lived WITHOUT that respirator... for 9 years or so.

Yes, getting turned every 4 hours is a great life.

193 posted on 03/25/2005 8:18:19 PM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Well, first off, I posted 3 brief excerpts, and provided links for further reading.
Additionally, I do not think that the statement by the USCCB that you posted actually supports your contention that it's permissable to starve someone if the financial burden is too great. While I do feel the bishops seem to be making an attempt to not offend or alienate, as they discuss various scenarios, they are careful to make qualifications and to caution against making excuses not to care for someone.

We must be sure that it is not our intent to cause the patient's death -- either for its own sake or as a means to achieving some other goal such as the relief of suffering...
Morally even the patient making decisions for himself or herself is bound by norms that prohibit the directly intended causing of death through action or omission, and by the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means...
And in particular relevance in the Schiavo case:
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.
194 posted on 03/25/2005 8:51:16 PM PST by visualops (A man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Peach

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.


195 posted on 03/25/2005 8:53:15 PM PST by lastchance (Life is sacred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

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.


196 posted on 03/25/2005 8:54:30 PM PST by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #197 Removed by Moderator

To: TASMANIANRED

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?


198 posted on 03/25/2005 9:11:39 PM PST by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED
"This is the dirtiest case I have ever heard of. Brain injured woman. Husband comes into cash and suddenly remembers she wants to die. Husband wants to have control over her death even though he has shacked up and made babies with another woman. Husband doesn't want her but won't let parents take custody of her. In most of the other cases there wasn't a dispute that a husbands right to kill superseded a parents right to want to protect.

Add to that a lawyer with whacky ideas of death, and a judge with a questionable agenda who blocks all attempts of the parents.

199 posted on 03/25/2005 9:19:23 PM PST by Exit148 (Founder of the Loose Change Club. Every nickle and dime counts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

And you as well. Happy Easter.


200 posted on 03/25/2005 9:28:07 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-224 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson