Most observers trace the modern euthanasia debate back to the court case of Karen Ann Quinlan, and her story is a poignant example of medical technology’s ability to prolong life. In 1975, after consuming alcohol and tranquilizers at a party, Quinlan collapsed into an irreversible coma. This coma left her unable to breathe without a respirator. She also needed a feeding tube to be able to eat. Her parents asked that she be removed from the respirator, but her doctors objected. The New Jersey Supreme court case that followed was the first to bring the issue of euthanasia into the public eye. In 1976 the court allowed Quinlan’s parents to have the respirator removed. Although Quinlan lived for another nine years with the help of the feeding tube, the case set a precedent for a patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.
In 1990, that right was further expanded in the case of Nancy Cruzan. Cruzan had gone into a irreversible coma in 1983 after a sever car crash, and her parents wanted the machine that was keeping her alive removed. However, in this case the machine consisted of intravenous feeding tubes that provided Cruzan with hydration and nutrition. Her parents viewed the removal of the machine as the termination of unwanted treatment. However, the state of Missouri argued that to remove the tubes would be intentionally killing Cruzan through starvation. In a controversial vote, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the provision of artificially delivered food and water is a treatment which patients may legally refuse, even if doing so would result in death.
