Replies

Karen Ann Quinlan: The Beginning of the Right-to-Die Debate Mireille Deschamps

Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate. The 21-year-old Quinlan collapsed after drinking too much alcohol and taking in 0.6 miligram of aspirin and the tranquilizer Valium at a party in 1975. Doctors saved her life, but she suffered brain damage and lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state." Her family began a legal lawsuit for the right to remove her from life support machinery. They succeeded, but then Quinlan kept breathing after the respirator was unplugged. She remained in a comatose state for almost 10 years until she died in 1985 in New Jersey. Karen Ann Quinlan was the first modern icon of the right-to-die debate (Munson, 2000).

At the beginning of Karen Quinlan’s coma, her family was hopeful, but then Karen’s condition got worst. She began to lose weight and to contract into a fetal position, until her five-foot-two-inch frame became no longer than three feet. She breathed with a respirator that pumped air through a tube to her throat. Everyone began to think that this situation was hopeless. The family believed that this treatment was too much for them to handle and that Karen definitely would not want to be kept alive in this manner (Munson, 2000).

After three and a half months that Karen had been in a coma, the family decided to authorize the discontinuance of extraordinary procedures. The next day, the doctor decided that he would not take Karen off the respirator due to moral reasons. Since Karen was twenty-one years old, the Quinlans were no longer considered the legal guardians. The family was furious and decided to call their attorney. Mr. Quinlan believed that it was God’s will to take Karen off the respirator (Munson, 2000).

During this trial, Mr. Quinlan requested to be the legal guardian of Karen and thus would be authorized to discontinue Karen’s life. He claimed the right to privacy, which would enable individuals to terminate the use of medical measures, even when death may result. He also appealed the clause “cruel and unusual punishment” of the Eighth Amendment by stating that keeping Karen on the respirator against “her will” and her family’s will was cruel. Although these were all good arguments, the judge decided to rule against Mr. Quinlan since Karen was still medically and legally alive (Munson, 2000).

Due to the judge’s decision, Mr. Quinlan decided to appeal this decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. This time, the court agreed with Mr. Quinlan’s argument on the right to privacy and that whatever he decided for her should be accepted by society. This case also set aside criminal liability because death would not result from homicide since the respirator would only be removed. The court told Mr. Quinlan that the doctors at the hospital may remove the respirator. Once the respirator was removed, Karen was able to breathe without mechanical assistance. Due to this new finding, the Quinlans began to search for a chronic-care hospital, and finally a nursing home decided to take Karen under their care. Karen continued to breathe and was given nutrients and antibiotics to fight off infections. Then, she passed away at the age of thirty-one (Munson, 2000).

The main importance of the Quinlan movement is the expansion of the patient’s “right” to decline life-sustaining treatment. Also, it compels medical professionals to withdraw such treatment, if administered, and thus requires professional assistance for terminally ill individuals wishing to end their excruciating lives (Stevens, 1997).

Follow this link for more information on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment according to the American Medical Association.