You have been tasked to develop an in-service education product concerning the end of life decisions. Your instructions are to base your analysis on the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Research this, then write an analytical research paper. Be sure to include the following information in your paper.
What were the facts and court holding in the Quinlan case?
What law(s) did the judge rely upon to support his decision?
Analyze the hospital’s and the parent’s actions and beliefs, supporting one or the other.
Discuss the end of life issues (legal and ethical) involved in the case to support your defense of either the medical center or parents.
Consider these issues: autonomy (self-governance), justice, right to die, the need for an advanced directive, living wills, and powers of attorney.
Don’t assume the reader is knowledgeable about these issues.
Define them and discuss them to support your position in the paper.
Do not use the first person.
Your paper will be an analytical research paper. Do not include an abstract.
You can use this resource to create an outline and organize your paper: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/658/
End of life decisions
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Death is considered a natural and inevitable stage of life. Some people will experience dignified and peaceful death, while others will experience suffering during the process. Some people experience a situation that leads to prolonged unconsciousness. In this situation, these patients are neither dead nor alive. When a patient is in a coma, medicine’s role is to prolong life or usher their death respectfully and autonomously. The practice of intentionally ending a patient’s life suffering and pain is known as euthanasia. End of life decisions like euthanasia can be difficult and ethically controversial. The paper presented will focus on the end of life decisions in the case of Karen Ann Quinlan.
At 21 years old, Karen became unconscious and ceased to breathe after coming from a party. Karen had ingested valium and alcohol while on a crash diet. The harmful mixture led to a brief, interrupted breathing that resulted in a persistent chronic vegetative state. Karen’s father, Joseph Quinian, requested that Karen be removed from the extraordinary medical procedures to prolong her life. The doctors and the hospital opposed the appeal. The court denied Joseph’s appeal, thus leading the hospital to receive threats from Morris County. The hospital faced possible homicide charges if they complied with the wishes of Karen’s parents. The litigation of this case resulted in conflict. The State had the interest to maintain the patient’s life while disregarding the patient’s right to privacy (Robinson,2006). The holding prevented the acceleration of death, thus avoiding possible liabilities. Withholding Mr. Quinian’s guardianship authority was backed up by the fact that the patient had the right to die due to natural forces.
The State and the medical standards believed that removing the patient from the respirator was not conforming to medical practices (Falck,2001). The court justified its decision by responding to the standard and traditions of medical practices. However, if the hospital concluded that Karen’s case lacked the possibility of emerging for the chronic vegetative State, then the life-supporting machine should be discontinued. The court ruled that the physicians should be following hospital ethics. Upon agreement, the patient had the right to get discontinued from the ventilator.
When Karen arrived at Saint Clare hospital, Dr. Mose conducted extensive examinations that concluded that the patient was in an unresponsive coma state. Other physicians, including Dr. Mose, testified that Karen Quinlan was not brain dead. However, they believed that removing the respirator would result in further damage or even death. The physicians confirmed that removal of the respirator is against medical practices and ethics. On the contrary, Dr.Korein was called by the plaintiff, and he scribed the medical practice as judicious neglect (Horan,2001). Dr. Mose claimed that Karen should not receive any further treatment because it would no longer serve her in her State.
Joseph Quinian’s application as a guardian stems from familial love. Mr.Quinian’s plea is based on the fact that the extraordinary means to prolong Karen’s life subject her to pain. Joseph portrays a deep sense of morality when he approaches the situation with prayer. The willingness to seek the confidence to make the right decision through divine intervention portrays pure intentions. Also, Joseph consults a priest who states that the act was in moral conflict with religion.
The decision that dictates the Karen’s tight to a natural death intersects with theology, law, and medicine. The interrelationship of these factors influences the guardian. The verdict’s law side is implemented to protect the patient’s life, and its implicated to ensure that Karen lives the naturally intended lifespan (Robinson,2006). The medicine perspective covers the professional and technology ethics that are applied to prolong Karen’s life. Finally, the Theology side defends the sacredness of human life. The discipline intersects in their principles and application. One can acknowledge their possible conflicting aspects without denying their competence. For instance, civil law does not advocate for eternal life. However, it does not deny an individual to pursue and profess these concepts. Medical science is not a direct cause of natural death; however, it can be used as a catalyst when human life is undeniably lost. Religion can help one pursue the right guidance when seeking acceptance of natural death (Cantor,1999). Regardless, religion does not define natural death without the help of science.
The Karen Quinlan case brings to light the aspects of what should or should not be considered life. Using competent medical testimony, Karen Quinlan was declared hopeless to recover from her vegetative State by using medical procedures. The patient continued to receive cardiorespiratory support that sustained her physical functions. The decisions were based on Mr. Quinlan’s catholic moral theology. The moral decision eliminated extraordinary means that may burden the patient (Robinson,2006). A guardian is responsible for deciding on behalf of the patient regardless of the consequences. Karen’s guardians appealed for the ventilator removal, but she continued to receive support from the feeding tubes. The feeding tube did not cause the patient any pain; thus, it was not considered an extraordinary means. Upon Karen’s death, her guardians requested the hospital to avoid using any extraordinary means to revive her.
References
Cantor, N. N. (1999). “In the Matter of Karen Quinlan”—A Comment. BioScience, 26(4), 257-259.
Horan, D. J. (2001). The Quinlan Case. The Linacre Quarterly, 44(2), 18.
Falck, D. P. (2007). In re Quinlan: one court’s answer to the problem of death with dignity. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 34, 285.
Robinson, D. N. (2006). In the matter of Karen Quinlan. Bd. II. The complete briefs, oral arguments, and opinion in the New Jersey Supreme Court. Arlington.
