Legal Implications :: Physician Assisted Suicide Medical Ethics Essays

Legal Implications â€Å"The social commitment of the physician is to sustain life and relieve suffering. Where the performance of one duty conflicts with the other, the preferences of the patient should prevail† (AMA). The case of Karen Quinlan extrapolated beyond the trivial cases of patient autonomy, in which the patient’s wishes are known or well communicated, and introduced us to a realm of patient autonomy that, at the time, had not been thoroughly explored. Although it was alleged that Karen had â€Å"on at least three occasions made statements that if she were in a hopeless medical condition she would not want her life prolonged by†¦extraordinary medical measures,† no concrete proof of these statements or wishes existed (Armstrong). Thus, Karen Quinlan’s physician could only assume an end-of-life decision from her surrogate decision-makers, her parents, was appropriate—an assumption he was not ready to make. In fact, the physician stated, â€Å"he c ould find no medical precedent with regard to such action (taking Karen off of medical support via the request of her parents)† (Armstrong). Albeit common tradition had seen â€Å"many (physicians) refuse to inflict an undesired prolongation of the process of dying on a patient in (an) irreversible condition,† most of these cases resulted from conditions in which the wishes of the patient were fairly clear (Supreme Court). The case of Karen Quinlan was not. Nevertheless, significant legal actions were taken—ultimately resulting in the legal illumination of an individual’s rights and responsibilities with respect to situations similar to Karen Quinlan’s. When her physician refused Mr. Quinlan’s request, he was told he would have to become legal guardian of Karen before his decision was considered. However, Mr. Quinlan’s plea was denied and a complete stranger received guardian status from the Superior Court of New Jersey. The State Attorney General intervened, and along with the hospital, treating physicians, and the county prosecutor, filed a suit against Mr. Quinlan. They argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the Quinlan’s request, a person’s best interest is never served by allowing them to die, there is no constitutional right to die, the State’s interest in the preservation of life overrides the guarantees in the First and Eighth Amendments, granting the request would be against prevailing medical standards and ceasing treatment would be homicide if Karen died (Armstrong). The argument resulted in a ruling against the Quinlan family’s request.