This case was about whether or not people in a comatose state have the right to live or die. There was the question of how much evidence needs to be obtained to pull the plug on someone. The family who wanted the plug pulled needed to have proof that patient did no want to live in a vegetative state. People were arguing about whether or not the state had a right to interfere with what many thought was a family's personal choice. The state argued that someone should represent the rights of the patient. (Russel 1).
This case went to the Supreme Court because of the accident of Nancy Cruzan, who received serious brain damage form a car crash and wound up in a vegetative state. Her family wanted to take her off life support, claiming that they had had a conversation with Nancy before where she said she wouldn't want to exist in that way. But the state said that their evidence for their decision wasn't enough to warrant pulling the plug. Nancy's parents then took it up with the courts. (Commentary on 1990)
The courts ruled that a competent person may make the decision for an incompetent person. They said that this competent person needs to provide the court with evidence that the patient wishes to die. If there is not enough evidence, the states were free to choose to allow either the continuation or termination of life support. (Purdy 1) Reviewed by Mr. Midora
This case was about whether or not people in a comatose state have the right to live or die. There was the question of how much evidence needs to be obtained to pull the plug on someone. The family who wanted the plug pulled needed to have proof that patient did no want to live in a vegetative state. People were arguing about whether or not the state had a right to interfere with what many thought was a family's personal choice. The state argued that someone should represent the rights of the patient. (Russel 1).
This case went to the Supreme Court because of the accident of Nancy Cruzan, who received serious brain damage form a car crash and wound up in a vegetative state. Her family wanted to take her off life support, claiming that they had had a conversation with Nancy before where she said she wouldn't want to exist in that way. But the state said that their evidence for their decision wasn't enough to warrant pulling the plug. Nancy's parents then took it up with the courts. (Commentary on 1990)
The courts ruled that a competent person may make the decision for an incompetent person. They said that this competent person needs to provide the court with evidence that the patient wishes to die. If there is not enough evidence, the states were free to choose to allow either the continuation or termination of life support. (Purdy 1)
Reviewed by Mr. Midora