Legal Implications :: Physician Assisted Suicide Medical Ethics Essays

Legal Implications The social commitment of the physician is to sustain life and gruntle suffering. Where the performance of one duty conflicts with the other, the preferences of the diligent should prevail (AMA). The case of Karen Quinlan extrapolated beyond the trivial cases of patient indecorum, in which the patients wishes are know 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 on at least(prenominal) three occasions made statements that if she were in a hopeless checkup condition she would not want her life prolonged byover-the-top health check measures, no concrete proof of these statements or wishes existed (Armstrong). Thus, Karen Quinlans physician could only assume an end-of-life decision from her surrogate decision-makers, her parents, was appropriatean assumption he was not ready to make. In fact, the physician stated, he could find no medical pre cedent with regard to such action (taking Karen off of medical support via the request of her parents) (Armstrong). Albeit common tradition had seen many (physicians) refuse to chaffer 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 scant(p) (Supreme Court). The case of Karen Quinlan was not. Nevertheless, significant efficacious actions were takenultimately resulting in the legal illumination of an individuals rights and responsibilities with respect to situations similar to Karen Quinlans. When her physician refused Mr. Quinlans request, he was told he would have to become legal guardian of Karen forrader his decision was considered. However, Mr. Quinlans plea was denied and a complete stranger get guardian status from the Superior Court of New Jersey. The dry land attorney General intervened, and along with the hospital, treating p hysicians, and the county prosecutor, filed a suit against Mr. Quinlan. They argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the Quinlans request, a persons best invade is never served by allowing them to die, there is no constitutional right to die, the States interest in the preservation of life overrides the guarantees in the outgrowth 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 familys request.