Option 1: Patient Rights – Euthanasia
For this option, you will take a look at the ethics surrounding euthanasia (intentionally ending a life to relieve pain or suffering) and the right to live versus the right to die arguments that were present within the Teri Schiavo and Karen Ann Quinlan cases. Prior to beginning this discussion, view the On His Own Terms, The Terri Schiavo Story, and Euthanasia—Whose Life Is It, Anyway? videos and conduct research on the topic of euthanasia.
For your initial post, pick one of the cases (Craig Ewert, Teri Schiavo, or Karen Ann Quinlan) and one side of the argument (either right to live or right to die) and explain how you would have handled this particular case differently in order to protect the patient.
Discussion: Patient Rights – Euthanasia
This time I am assigned to the topic of patient rights-euthanasia. Moreover, euthanasia is a topic, which is practically based on the difficulties of the approaches that are made because everyone has a different will, opinion, and idea in order to consider things to be correct morally.
Here, I shall select the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, and the battle of her family with her right to live and the right to die factor. Karen Ann Quinlan was an American woman who got the importance in history to get the right to die, which can be considered to be a controversial topic in the United States. Moreover, news and reports have made concern that when she was 21 of her age, Quinlan became unconscious based on what she has consumed based on the Valium, along with alcohol consumption with a crash diet, which lapsed into a coma, that followed the persistent vegetative state. Doctors, under threats from the prosecutors, refused the request of her parents, and disconnected Karen Ann Quinlan’s ventilator, while the parents believed that this would constitute an extraordinary means to prolong her life, there her parents filed a suit to disconnect Quinlan from the ventilator. Therefore, this case gave rise to moral theology, euthanasia, legal guardianship as well as civil rights. Therefore, her case was mainly affected based on the practices of medicine and the law of the world. Therefore, this played a significant role, as well as an outcome based on her case while making development formal ethics between the hospital committees, the nursing home, and hospices.
As Karen Ann was found in a coma late, this forced her friends to perform CPR, as she was transported to the nearest hospital. Thus, there was no such evidence that was put forward, yet her family wanted her to be in a normal state with normal health while continuing her usual life.
Alternatively, as in her case, Karen Ann continued based on her persistence in the vegetative state with less opportunity. Apart from this, her condition went worse, therefore, her family went to court and pleaded about the state of Karen from the life support, because, she was reacting to the medication and treatments given to her. As if, I would have been in the medical clinic, then I would have settled a board in order to speak about their deteriorating health condition of Karen, as she was in a coma with the guardians, and would try to make them understand the thrashing consequences caused due to life-supporting system. Thus, the Supreme Court of New Jersey was heard and won by Joseph Quinlan. Therefore, this case stated that being the guardian, Joseph Quinlan takes up a decision in order to state about Karen to get the right to live or right to die, taking up the decision that can be accepted in the society. Therefore, Karen continued with her vegetative state for the next ten years, as her case showed that she was living a poor quality life, with a nominal opportunity to obtain good health. Thus, later, the hospital maintained that Karen passed from a respiratory failure, as she was brought off from the respiratory support of her respiratory system. She suffered from acute pneumonia, as reported by the health care center.
Therefore, in my case, I would like to select the right to die, because, she has been suffering severely, for the next ten years. Therefore, I would be of the straight opinion that Karen’s family has been watching their child struggle with severe coma and vegetative state of mind, and live a life of bedridden. Apart from this, her guardians even allowed her to get no possible way to make improvements in her life while she had to endure severe pain. Therefore, ending her pain and suffering would have been morally correct because this would have shown her the best gratitude so that she did not have to endure pain for ten years. Therefore, I would like to mention that, guardians do not understand that their child has to endure so much pain and has to wrestle based on theological beliefs. Therefore, in the case of Karen, whose health condition kept on deteriorating on her health condition, there was no possibility for her health, so she can wake up or can even continue with progression to get back to her previous life. Therefore, the only question that can be aroused that what life she would have lived as a life-supporter. Thus, Karen should never on a ventilator, which made her life to be difficult enough, and she shall move with her right to die, because of her health condition, which can never be the same like. Therefore, in my opinion, her guardians would have not let her face this suffering and shall take up the decision, to pass away with dignity, in the best interest of Karen.
References
Bustillos, D., & Vellek, S. (2019). Health care ethics and medical law. Bridgepoint Education.
Badu-Marfo, G., Farooq, B., & Patterson, Z. (2019). A perspective on the challenges and opportunities for privacy-aware big transportation data. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation, 1(1), 1-23.
