Euthanasia Case

Euthanasia can be a very sensitive issue for many people. Euthanasia is a personal choice for each family or situation. There are many people who have been in situations where a family or friend has an illness or is suffering so bad that you wish that you can take their pain away. But does that mean we are willing to pull the plug on their life?. Looking back on a case of a young lady named Karen Ann Quinlan who lived in New Jersey in 1975 and her parents who were faced with a choice for their own daughter's and to choose life or death. In our analysis we will also look at how John Hardwig philosophy on Euthanasia and how we can incorporate his philosophy into Karen Ann Quinlan situation.

Karen Quinlan was a 21-year-old college student in 1975 when she took a combination of drugs and alcohol at a party. Feeling sick, she was put to bed by friends who later returned to find that she had stopped breathing. By the time help arrived, Quinlan's oxygen-deprived brain was severely damaged, and she was reduced to what doctors describe as a persistent vegetative state. Quinlan was kept alive with life-support technology, including feeding tubes and a respirator that enabled her to breathe. While there was some low-level brain function, her cognitive abilities were wiped out. When months passed without any improvement in her condition, Quinlan's parents asked that she be removed from life support and allowed her to die (Long, 1). Karen Ann Quinlan doctor's refused to because by medical standards she could not be declared legally brian dead. The state of New Jersey also stepped in by saying that any physician that tried to end Quinlan's life would be prosecuted. The Ouinlan's knew what they had to do to fight the battle for their daughter who was unable to speak for herself. The Quinlan's asked the courts permission to remove their daughter from the ventilator. The court had appointed a guardian for Karen and they argued that the parents had no right to propose what amounted to euthanasia. The Quinlans lost this their first round in court. They appealed their case to New Jersey Supreme Court, where they based their case on the First (freedom of religion) and Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) Amendments. Although the court rejected both arguments, it ultimately ruled in the Quinlan's favor on the basis of U.S. Supreme Court precedents affirming an individual's right to privacy (Long,1). Following the ruling Karen was taken off of the respirator, but was left on the feeding tube for nutrition. Karen Quinlan did not die she was breathing unaided. She lived for nine years later she died from pneumonia. They had done an autopsy which disclosed severe damage to her thalamus, that part of the brain that controls -- among other things -- the processing of sensory information .Quinlan's case is a milestone, a legal precedent for other right-to-die cases (Long, 1).

We take a look at what John Hardwig ideas are. He makes a great point he says "There are also, sadly, times when death comes too late because others-family and loved ones-would be better off if someone were dead" ( LaFollette, 91). Karen Quinlan parent are faced with this exact idea that death came to late for them. Karen lived for nine years and her parents sat by and watched. Her parents had to feel like why is she not dying. When Hardwig discusses about religion and