In re Quinlan

Error creating thumbnail:

In re Quinlan was a landmark legal case in the United States that had a significant impact on the right to die and end-of-life care decisions. The case involved Karen Ann Quinlan, a young woman who became unconscious after consuming a combination of alcohol and drugs. She entered a persistent vegetative state, and her parents sought to remove her from a ventilator that was keeping her alive.

Background

Karen Ann Quinlan was born on March 29, 1954, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. On April 15, 1975, at the age of 21, she collapsed after consuming alcohol and tranquilizers at a party. She was subsequently taken to a hospital where she was placed on a mechanical ventilator to assist her breathing. Despite medical efforts, she did not regain consciousness and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.

Legal Proceedings

In 1975, Karen's parents, Joseph and Julia Quinlan, requested that the hospital remove her from the ventilator, arguing that she would not have wanted to live in such a condition. The hospital refused, citing ethical and legal concerns. The Quinlans then took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

On March 31, 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Quinlans, allowing them to remove Karen from the ventilator. The court's decision was based on the right to privacy, which it interpreted as encompassing the right to refuse medical treatment. This case set a precedent for future right-to-die cases and influenced the development of advance directives and living wills.

Aftermath

Following the court's decision, Karen Ann Quinlan was removed from the ventilator. However, she continued to live in a persistent vegetative state for nearly a decade, sustained by artificial nutrition and hydration. She passed away on June 11, 1985.

Impact

The In re Quinlan case had a profound impact on bioethics, medical law, and end-of-life care in the United States. It highlighted the importance of patient autonomy and the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The case also led to increased awareness and use of advance directives and living wills.

See also

• Right to die
• Advance directive
• Living will
• Persistent vegetative state
• Bioethics
• Medical law

External links

‎