Quinlan Vs Wenland Case Study

What are the significant differences between the Quinlan, Cruzan, and Wenland cases? Why are these three cases important? In the case of Quinlan, her wishes had been made known by previous oral and written statements she had made. In this case her father was the surrogate speaking her wishes and fighting the courts systems who had ruled against his decision to remove her respirator. This was then overturned on the grounds of the constitutional right to privacy covers the decisions of formerly competent patients whose legal surrogates may speak for them, when they no longer can. She did not die when her respirator was taken off, she continued to breathe on her own. The family did not want her tube feeding removed because they thought she would suffer.
In the Cruzan case her family had to convince the courts that she would not want the tube feeding and hydration. They realized this would not cause her and pain and suffering due to her PVS. Here they had to fight with the Missouri courts. In this case they had to show clear and
court case to deal with the issue of end-of-life care was the matter of in re Quinlan, a 1976 New Jersey state court case. Quinlan became the first icon of the “right to die” movement. The case of Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Dep’t of Health took the end-of-life issue one step farther down the road toward active euthanasia. The Cruzan family wanted to remove their daughter’s food and water (ordinary care) rather than artificial life support (extraordinary care). The Court’s decision in favor of death by dehydration and starvation was made in 1990. Wendlends case was more unique he was still conscious so the courts decided that we must for now continue to operate on the assumption that life is the best interest for the non terminally ill patient. This case also points out how important it is to have a living will or POA that is aware of your wishes when it comes to living or