Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The four principles of medical ethics
Utilitarian medical ethics
Medical law ethics & bioethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The four principles of medical ethics
Should Nancy Cruzan, who suffered brain damage from a car accident, be hooked to a life sustaining machine for the rest of her life? Unable to move, talk, eat or even breathe on her own or should she be released from her pain and suffering? This case provided an altercation between state medical procedures supported by human preservation of life vs. human rights under the constitution and the right to refuse medical treatment.
Ms. Cruzan, a twenty-five year old, was on her way home on January 11th, 1983 when she crashed into a ditch; causing an automobile accident, which left her in a “persistent vegetative state”. (Lewin) By the time paramedics arrived on scene, she had sustained probable brain damage, composed by oxygen deprivation. The estimated length of time Cruzan suffered without oxygen was 12 to 14 minutes. The general time that permanent brain damage occurs is after six minutes without oxygen. Cruzan remained in a coma for approximately three weeks before progressing to an unconscious state. A month after her accident, surgeons implanted a feeding and hydration tube with the consent of her husband. In October 1983, she was admitted to a state hospital and doctors soon appointed the fact she did not have any chances of regaining mental stability. (“The Case”) Her vegetative state meant that Cruzan was conscious, but she was unware of her surroundings. Despite her state, Cruzan’s life expectancy was estimated to be another thirty years or so. (“Supreme Court Center”) For almost eight years, her body was rigid and her feet and hands contracted and bent. She had occasional seizures and vomited, while her eyes sometimes opened and moved, she showed no signs of recognizing her family. In 1987, Ms. Cruzan’s parents went to cour...
... middle of paper ...
...ctor, MDH - 497 U.S. 261 (1990)." US Supreme Court Center. Justia, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Casebriefs. (n.d.) Casebriefs Retrieved April 11, 2014
Cruzan v. Director, MO. Dept. of Health. (n.d.). Course Notes. Retrieved April 12, 2014
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health | Nolo.com. (n.d.). Nolo.com. Retrieved April 14, 2014.
Ganta, A. (n.d.). Cruzan v. Missouri - Civil Rights or Civil Liberties Supreme Court Cases: Civil Rights or Civil Liberties Supreme Court Cases:. Retrieved April 12, 2014
Lewin, T. (1990, December 26). Nancy Cruzan Dies, Outlived by a Debate Over the Right to Die. The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2014
Oyez Chicago-Kent College of Law (n.d.). Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. ‘Retrieved April 12, 2014
The Case of Nancy Cruzan. (n.d.).Che.org . Retrieved April 12, 2014
Mclean, Paul C. “Texas is keeping a dead woman on life support despite her family’s wishes.” the guardian. The Guardian. 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
Cozzens, Lisa. "Plessy v. Ferguson." After the Civil War:. N.p., 17 Sept. 1999. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Milbauer, Barbara. The Law Giveth: Legal Aspects of the Abortion Controversy. Atheneum, New York: 1983.
Four doctors, three terminally ill patients, and a nonprofit organization called Compassion in Dying, came together to file a suit arguing that prohibiting PAS is against a person’s right to liberty (Illingworth & Parmet, 2006). This became known as the Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al. case. This case went to the Supreme Court in January of 1997 and by that following June was ruled constitutional to uphold PAS as illegal (Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al., 1997). The penalty for any assistance in a ...
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Before, there were no breakthroughs with the opportunity of saving lives. Innovations in medical technology made contributions to correct abnormal heartbeats and save lives by using a defibrillator and modern respirator. Who would know that the rapid discoveries would include successfully giving patients surgical transplants? Furthermore, President Lyndon Johnson implemented an executive policy requiring the usage of medical response trauma teams. Since 1976, this executive order has allowed the widespread use of CPR, and organizations like the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association were founded. “About 6.4 million people now survive angina chest pain each year, while an additional 700,000 people survive a heart attack each year (pg. 15 of Last Rights) Despite these remarkable breakthroughs that help those badly injured, the law becomes vague and allows more opportunities for misinterpretation on defining death. As a result, this could be advantageously used against the best interest of others and the government. “This ten-year mishmash of laws is what led the previously mentioned President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by an act of Congress in 1978 , to tackle the first task of defining death.” (pg. 81). The President’s Commission forced the U.S Supreme Court and
United States v. Cruikshank. 92 U.S. 542. U.S. Supreme Court. 1857 Online. Find Law. 30 Mar. 2005
Because the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the removal of Nancy Cruzan’s artificial hydration and nutrition on the grounds that “clear and convincing” evidence of Nancy’s wishes was not provided, the Cruzan family appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court arguing that Nancy was being deprived of her right to refuse medical treatment. The Supreme Court ruling affirmed that competent patients have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but also noted that incompetent patients are not capable of exercising this right. Consequently, states may establish their own safe-guards to govern cases in which a substituted decision maker wishes to refuse treatment for an incompetent patient. This ruling therefore upheld the decision of Missouri’s Supreme Court.
1976- The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan, who has been in a tranquilizer-and-alcohol-induced coma for a year, can remove her respirator. She dies nine years later.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.