Alliedassault - View Single Post

Colonel · 03-21-2005, 01:23 PM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":8dc4f]if this case didnt make the news Im not sure if I would have discussed it with my wife.[/quote:8dc4f]

I talked to my wife and family a long time ago. I guess it has to do with the fact that the Karen Ann Quinlan case was big news when I was in High School.

FYI - for the youngsters ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 1975, Karen Quinlan lapsed into a coma, apparently as a result of consuming alcohol and drugs. Karen was brought unconscious to a hospital emergency room. After her condition stabilized, feeding required a nasogastric tube (artificial nutrition and hydration) and breathing required a respirator. She was eventually diagnosed as being in a permanent coma, i.e., a permanent vegetative state in current terminology. Karen Quinlan’s father sought court appointment as guardian of her person for the express purpose of authorizing removal of her respirator, whether or not she died as a consequence. He was opposed not only by Karen’s physicians but by the local prosecutor and the state attorney general.

The New Jersey trial court denied Mr. Quinlan’s request to be appointed guardian and also his request to terminate the use of the respirator, holding in effect that the decision was solely that of the attending physicians acting in accordance with prevailing medical standards. It rejected the argument that there is a viable legal distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means to sustain life. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision and granted Mr. Quinlan’s request. Karen’s physicians gradually weaned her from the respirator during May of 1976. She continued to breathe on her own. Her father did not want artificial nutrition and hydration stopped, though the Supreme Court gave permission for all life-support to be withdrawn. Karen lived another ten years. In its considerations regarding this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court advocated giving decision-making authority to a hospital ethics committee (which were still largely non-existent at the time). As a result of this case, ethics committees grew in number and debate arose regarding their appropriate role and authority. Most experts now agree that any authority an ethics committee has is limited and must appropriately respect the decision-making authority that properly belongs to patients, surrogates, and care-providers. [Source: In Re Quinlan, 355 A.2d. (N.J. 1976).]

	(#11)
Colonel is Offline Master Sergeant Posts: 1,789 Join Date: May 2002 Location: Marietta, GA	03-21-2005, 01:23 PM [quote="Sgt>Stackem":8dc4f]if this case didnt make the news Im not sure if I would have discussed it with my wife.[/quote:8dc4f] I talked to my wife and family a long time ago. I guess it has to do with the fact that the Karen Ann Quinlan case was big news when I was in High School. FYI - for the youngsters .... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On April 15, 1975, Karen Quinlan lapsed into a coma, apparently as a result of consuming alcohol and drugs. Karen was brought unconscious to a hospital emergency room. After her condition stabilized, feeding required a nasogastric tube (artificial nutrition and hydration) and breathing required a respirator. She was eventually diagnosed as being in a permanent coma, i.e., a permanent vegetative state in current terminology. Karen Quinlan’s father sought court appointment as guardian of her person for the express purpose of authorizing removal of her respirator, whether or not she died as a consequence. He was opposed not only by Karen’s physicians but by the local prosecutor and the state attorney general. The New Jersey trial court denied Mr. Quinlan’s request to be appointed guardian and also his request to terminate the use of the respirator, holding in effect that the decision was solely that of the attending physicians acting in accordance with prevailing medical standards. It rejected the argument that there is a viable legal distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means to sustain life. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision and granted Mr. Quinlan’s request. Karen’s physicians gradually weaned her from the respirator during May of 1976. She continued to breathe on her own. Her father did not want artificial nutrition and hydration stopped, though the Supreme Court gave permission for all life-support to be withdrawn. Karen lived another ten years. In its considerations regarding this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court advocated giving decision-making authority to a hospital ethics committee (which were still largely non-existent at the time). As a result of this case, ethics committees grew in number and debate arose regarding their appropriate role and authority. Most experts now agree that any authority an ethics committee has is limited and must appropriately respect the decision-making authority that properly belongs to patients, surrogates, and care-providers. [Source: In Re Quinlan, 355 A.2d. (N.J. 1976).]