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?
Terri has the benefit of three things: a family (parents and brother) that wants to care for her, a Pope who dares to support her moral right to receive the care, and faithful Christians who support the good intentions of the Pope and Terri's family. She also has the unfortunate disagreement of her husband, his brother, and a culture of death that desire to advance the agenda of the New World Order.
There might be other cases thus similar to Terri's, however. If you know any, why don't you list their names and locations so local sympathizers can do something about it? We don't know what we are not told. Terri's in the news. She didn't get there because people are hypocrites. And if we lose the fight for Terri's life, the fight for other, similar lives will be all the more difficult.
"Why the different levels of concern ~ probably because the Schiavo case is different."
It is interesting. I see how in Baby Theresa's case, the courts emphasized the child's status as a person and in this case they emphasize Mike Schiavo's status as Terri's husband and legal guardian.
She was not ignored and it was quite controvercial in the Philadelphia area. News wasn't 24/7 and there was no internet. Granted CNN had just gone on air, but it wasn't their cup of tea.
See my post #14. You wouldn't know anything about that were it not for the publicity surrounding this case.
Hello, the difference is there is an issue in the Schiavo case whether she is in a PVS or not.
***In the case of Quinlan...Was she also taken off of all nourishment? Or just life support machines?***
Since they described her as brain dead, she must have been given nourishment. You've just pointed up the difference between Terri and Karen Ann Quinlan which the writer ignored.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Joseph Quinlan the right to remove her respirator and her feeding tube. However, he chose to remove only the respirator.
In the case of Quinlan...Was she also taken off of all nourishment? Or just life support machines?
*******
Just her respirator, never her feeding tube.
Oh, man!!!...youASSh*le!
Maybe you weren't around, but the Karen Ann Quinlan case was as big as any "baby-down-the-well" story at the time. There was huge "passion" over her case. The question is absurd.
But it does bring into question why the executive and legislative branches of both the state and federal governments chose to intervene in this case vs. all the others. Nor does it explain why so many people what both the President and the Governor of Florida to exceed their authority in this one case. What happened to equal protection under the law?
A talk show host/attorney has a lot of law on Terri's case- he is a screamer, but I liked a few of the shows I listened to. I don't know if I will ever get around to reading all of the case information- too much, but here it is:
Radio talk show host
http://www.kfiam640.com/hosts/handel.html
Links re the subject
PDF***
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/#docs
A) We don't know her condition or chances for improvement. She's been denied basic diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation.
B) We don't know her wishes.
There's a great deal more, but these are the basic answers I have to your question.
This is a very unusual case, not that similar at all to the ones in the article.
Of the estimated 30,000 to 35,000 CURRENT cases comparable to Schiavo's in the U.S., many may have similar family disputes and lack of clarity about the patient's wishes.
This is NOT about Schiavo. She's just a handy excuse.
Bump...PING
Yeah, you've got Handel's handle: he's a screamer.
I admit, I sometimes listen to him. :)
For 10 years. The basic facts are summarized above.
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.