Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health
What is the value of a life? Do family members always have the patients’ best interest in mind when making medical decisions? Who should ultimately make the decision of life or death for patients that will never leave a permanent vegetative state?
Lester and Joyce Cruzan faced an issue no parent ever wants to face after their daughter, Nancy was in a horrific car accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state. On January 11, 1983 Nancy Cruzan lost control of her vehicle and was ejected from the car. She was found face down in a ditch with no pulse or breathing, paramedics were able to resuscitate her. “The Missouri trial court in this case found that permanent brain damage generally results
…show more content…
She was brought back to life but remained in a vegetative state only kept alive by artificial measures. Her only life experiences were that of pain. Nancy’s parents believed that Nancy would not want to live this way. They wanted to have her feeding tubes removed. They were faced with people who believed that life in any condition is of absolute value. These opponents believed that removing this feeding tube would be “morally wrong.” They saw this as opening the door to killing people who are of “no use.” The author added few people take advantage of the options the case made available to them: only 10 percent have living wills to reflect their wishes regarding end-of-life care, should they become incapacitated …show more content…
“Choosing Death for Nancy Cruzan.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 20, no. 1, 1990, pp. 42–44. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3562976
Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School , www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/497/261.
DeBenedictis, Don J “Cruzan’s Death Doesn’t Still Debate. Euthanasia Opponents Prevented from Appealing Decision Allowing Tube Remoal.” ABA Journal, Vol. 77. No 3, 1991., pp. 26-27. JSTor. JSTOR. www.jstor.org/stable/20761433.
Forte, David F. "The role of the clear and convincing standard of proof in right to die cases." Issues in Law & Medicine, Fall 1992, pp. 183-203. Student Edition, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A12748182/STOM?u=va_s_088_0020&sid=STOM&xid=a66beea0. Accessed 6 May 2018.
Gaudin, Anne Marie. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question - But Who Decides?, 51 La. L. Rev. (1991) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol51/iss6/7
Lewin, Tamar. “Nancy Cruzan Dies, Outlived by a Debate Over the Right to Die.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Dec. 1990,
Claire Conroy was an 84-year-old patient in a nursing home. She suffered from severe organic brain syndrome, necrotic decubitus ulcers, urinary tract infection, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. She was unable to speak or move, but sometimes able to follow people with her eyes. Nurses were not able to feed her by hand, so a nasogastric tube was inserted to be able to provide nutrition and give all her medications and fluid this route. Her only surviving relative, her nephew and legal guardian, requested the Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey, to allow the nasogastric tube to be removed and thus allow Claire Conroy to die.
Shawnpal Kahlon Ms. Billimoria April 11, 2016 Sue Rodriguez Summary of case Sue Rodriguez was a 42 year old woman suffering from ALS, a terminal disease the slowly destroys the body’s nerves and shuts down all of its function. For Sue the disease had progressed to the point where she could no longer perform everyday tasks she once could such as, picking up a fork, eating cereal and taking a shower. To deal with this, sue hired a personal assistant to help her eat, bathe and sleep.
Once she was unplugged Nancy passed away 2 weeks later on December 26, 1990 with her parents by her bedside. This case added to the Fourteenth amendment stating “equal protection under law” This case was also the first case “right to die” in the United States. This decision was made on June 25,
The following is a summary of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), including information pertaining to the facts of Hendrick’s criminal history, the procedural history of the cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court decision, and the precedent that has been set for future similar cases. Leroy Hendricks, the subject of this legal matter, is an individual who has exhibited a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviors throughout his lifetime. Hendricks claims that his sexual misconduct first began in 1950 when he was twenty years old and he exposed himself to two females; shortly after in 1957 he received a criminal charge for indecent exposure, for exposing himself to another female victim.
This essay discusses the Terri Schiavo 's case during the time period between 1990 and 2005.After Ms. Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, lack of oxygen leads her brain to damage. As a result of this damage, she had to be given a PEG tube to continue her life in the vegetative state. Her husband is appointed as guardian by the court, and Terri 's family do not reject that. Michael Schiavo-her husband- receives about $300,000 and about $750,000 for Ms. Schiavo’s medical care. After three years, he demands the PEG to be removed.
Analysis: The argument that arose before the court was a different legal conception of s.7 than that the prevailing Rodriguez case was deciding. Laws relating to principles of over breadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also contrasted the evidence before the court in Rodriguez. The evidence proved that assisted suicide does not deprive people who are disabled from s. 15 under equal treatment.
In Kevin t. Keith’s article “doctors should stop treatment that is futile” He addresses his argument on why doctors should should stop futile treatment in a persistent tone.which is addressed to the healthcare network and the families of terminally ill patients. He presented a fair argument with questionable facts, ok anecdotes, and substandard credibility. The facts he uses are questionable at best due to the fact that he has no backing to the facts in his argument. Such as when he states that ”most hospitals and nursing homes have tried not to refuse care...because it leads to bad publicity.”
The case of Carter vs. Canada is one of triumph for Canadians to question their civil liberties and constitutional privileges to an extent that had not been experienced in the courts history. The decision to abandon the previous law restricting the practice of doctor assisted suicide was justified by the court in the context of those with severe illness as well as a mental disability, in which prohibits their overall wellness. In regards to Life, liberty and security, it comes to a progressive conclusion that both the Supreme Court of Canada and Tina Carter both unilaterally agree that Canadians who are suffering unbearably at the end of life should have the right to choose a dignified and peaceful death. To explicitly regard the constitutional legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide within the charter of rights general limitations, the law currently contradicts the charter.
Even in a persistent vegetative state a person still has fundamental rights under the state and federal constitution to refuse or direct the withdrawal of death prolonging procedures. The hospital fear of removing the feeding tube is justified under most state laws. Only in a few states it has been legalized for physician-assisted suicide. That is they allow doctors to assists patients to end their lives if the patient are to ill to do it by themself. In other states, doctors who assist their dying patient end their life of excoriating pain and suffering could be charged with murder.
The Supreme Court Case Gonzales vs. Oregon, argued on October 5, 2005, deals with an act that Oregon enacted, the “Death With Dignity Act.” Under this act, physicians had the power to prescribe fatal doses of controlled substances to patients who were terminally ill —meaning that suicide assisted by a doctor was now legal in Oregon. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in 2001, asked that law enforcement prosecute doctors who prescribed these lethal doses of controlled substances by issuing a ruling called the “Ashcroft Directive.” The Ashcroft Directive stated that under the Controlled Substances Act, suicide under a physician was not an actual “medical purpose,” and therefore, illegal. The General Attorney proceeding Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales,
It has been 21 years and physician-assisted suicide is still one of the biggest legal issues today and in the Supreme Court. “When Sue Rodriguez took her case to court, she changed the very nature of the decision-making process that might affect how she would live out her final days and how she would die. She tried to change the law of the land” (Bereza). This impacted today’s society and law; in fact the federal government will appear in front of the BC Court of Appeal later this month for discussion of the band on assisted-suicide. The crucial debate on this controversial topic continues to
The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.