The right-to-die is an issue that brings up so many opinions and presents many different questions. Who has the right to take someone’s life? If a person is no longer capable of making those important decisions, can someone else take that responsibility? In the 1970s and 1980s, this became a debate between hospitals and the courts. In 1976, Karen Ann Quinlan was a twenty-two-year-old woman that was placed in a coma. Her parents wanted to have the respirator that was helping to keep their daughter alive removed. Although, the doctor refused to take the orders. The family took this issue to court, and the court decided that the right to privacy is broad enough to allow a patient to decline medical treatment under certain circumstances. Since Karen wasn’t able to make this decision due to her circumstances the best way to have her privacy justified is by letting her parents be able to make this decision. In this situation, the family removed her from the respirator without any further interventions from the state or the court. In the state of Jersey, this was able to occur although in the state of Missouri they viewed this situation very differently. In the state of Missouri, protecting a life out weights the ability of a family to prove what the best option is for the individual. In the case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), which examined Nancy Beth Cruzan who was an individual in a serious car accident. She was found face down in a ditch and had no respiratory or cardiac functions. This placed Cruzan in a vegetative state she was no longer able to have significant cognitive functions. She required feeding and hydration tubes to be able to stay alive. Her parents wanted to remove her from this and this would end Nancy life if this was done. The hospital refused, in the state of Missouri a person needs to provide clear and convicting evidence that the person would want to be medically terminated. The state of Missouri to me emphasizes the idea of privacy and the need to say yes this is my decision by the individual and not just make an assumption. This is giving the individual the right to privacy over their body and not just using better judgment. The Cruzan family provided a friend to speak on the behalf of Nancy which stated, “she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live it at least halfway normally.”[1]The court ruled in the favor of the family, but the court reversed it. This case was the central figure in the ruling of the Supreme Court’s 1990 right-to-die ruling. Since the state of Missouri was acting in a way to preserve life, they found this to be seen as a constitutional action. I think the right- to- die can be hard when dealing with privacy rights. Yes, an individual who is dying should have the right to choose what happens to them but, when that option is no longer there they do need someone who’s going to act in the best interest of the patient. In both cases, these women were in situations that recovery wasn’t likely. I also wonder what if this same situation deals with a minor than is it a right to privacy because your parent is in charge of you and acts on the minors’ behalf. Although, is it always going to be right decisions the right to privacy continues to be a very difficult topic because it has so many sides to it.
[1]Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America. 7th ed. Vol. , Rights, Liberties, and Justice /. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.
TyenaGarcia 