The Right to Die?

Who, if anyone, has the right to choose your quality of life when you cannot? This was the ethical debate behind the case of Nancy Cruzan, where her parents fought to prove that Nancy would not want to keep on living if it meant in an incapacitated state. It would ultimately spark long-term debates on the choices of ending life support and physician-assisted suicide.

In short, the case involved a young woman who suffered a serious car accident and fell face-down into a puddle. (Lo and Steinbrook 1991) Unfortunately, medical assistance arrived significantly after the fact. Because of this, it was found that “despite attempts at rehabilitation, Nancy Cruzan did not improve and was subsequently diagnosed as having permanent, irreversible brain degeneration. (Leschensky 1991) However, her parents fought to take Cruzan off life-support for her best interest. Unfortunately, it was stated that “the Court did not find support for the assertion that an incompetent person possesses the same right to refuse treatment as a competent person. (Leschensky 1991) Although her parents eventually won, the major dilemma has continued to be in defining the clear standards as to who gets to choose someone’s quality of life when they can no longer do so - as also seen in the Terry Schiavo case.

I agree with the idea that many support, claiming that “families generally are in the best position to know what incompetent patients would want and to act in their best interest.” (Lo and Steinbrook 1991) This is certainly a challenging situation, but when everyone deserves the right to a desired quality of life, it should be in the hands of someone trusted when that person can no longer choose. Since the case took place almost 25 years ago, medical procedures have likely changed. Yet there still doesn’t appear to be a clearly defined procedure to handle a case of this ethical controversy. However, I believe that an effective way to do this is would be to create a written agreement between every legal adult and the state’s medical authorities that clearly outlines the “clear and convincing” evidence of an individual’s choice in this state.

References

Leschensky, W. L. (1991). Constitutional protection of the `refusal-of-treatment': Cruzan v.Director, Missouri Department.. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 14(1), 248.

Lo, B., & Steinbrook, R. (1991). Beyond the Cruzan Case: The U.S. Supreme Court and Medical Practice. Annals Of Internal Medicine, 114(10), 895.