Question

READ AND FIX GRAMMER

Facts

a. This case is patient to the physician about the right to die. The nature of the case is a thirty-two-year-old Nancy Cruz who was in a persistent vegetative state since 1983 could not order the physician to remove artificial nutrition. In 1983 she was in a car accident, and she was found face down in a dish without respiratory or cardiac function. She was unconscious on the accident and paramedics were able to restore her breathing in her heart rate on site. I am bringing to the hospital the neurologist said that she suffered a cerebral contusion and her brain was without oxygen for 12 to 14 minutes. In the beginning, she was able to ingest some food orally but that stopped, and then the surgeon implanted a gastro feeding tube with consent from her husband. She did not improve, and until December 1990 she was declared that she is in a persistent vegetative state which is irreversible permanent and ongoing. The doctor said she still had 30 more years to live, but she would never be able to come out of the vegetative state. Her parents made a tough decision and asked the hospital staff to cut all artificial nutrition and hydration process to let her die, and Hospital refuse this. Fix State trial court said that she still had the fundamental rights and can make her own decision. Journey trial court her former roommate stated that they had a conversation that said if she was ever sick that she would want to stay alive in a vegetative state. The case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which reserves the lower Court's decision. The parents we are not entitled to order the determination of her treatment under the Mississippi living will. The roommate's statements did not authorize so level Clarity to convince this is what she would want. In June 1990 the Supreme Court would hear the case and said most States are using common law to inform consent and they have the right to refuse treatment. The Supreme Court looked at the 14th Amendment to find a person has a constitutional right to deny life-saving hydration and nutrition. After the Supreme Court heard the case, they return to the Missouri court and November 14th, 1990 judge Charles teel authorized the Physicians to remove the feeding tube. Then on December the 26th 1990 two weeks after the feeding tube was removed Nancy Cruzan died. What happened to make this lawsuit is the family wanted her to die when there was nothing else that they could do to help prolong her life and let her wake up so she could live her life normally.

Issue(s)

The laws that were Jeanine broken in this case is common law and denying her 14th Amendment liberties finding that a competent person has the Constitutional protection in right grounds in a duty to process cause to refuse hydration and nutrition if so chosen. At this time the lower courts were fine common law of Missouri in Missouri's living will. This court was one of them that had to go to the Supreme Court because this affected the whole nation.

5. Decision/Holding (READ THIS AND HELP ME REWORD THIS IDK HOW TO FIX IT )

The Court ruled that the State of Missouri could prohibit the Cruzan family from removing feeding tubes from Nancy because there was no clear evidence that she would have wanted medical treatment stopped. The decision of the Court in Cruzan indicated the Court's primary concern with the preservation of life, even at the expense of "family sovereignty."

A living will prohibit prolonged tube feeding and mechanical respiration, or resuscitation—restarting the heart by artificial means. In many States, a legal order called a "power of attorney" allows a friend or relative to speak on a person's behalf when a traumatic injury occurs. They when to the supreme court they said held that the right-to-die issues should be divided under state law and is subject to due process. After the Court upheld the right of Missouri to demand "clear and convincing evidence," a new hearing was held before a Missouri court to determine Nancy Cruzan's fate. After hearing testimony, a State judge authorized the disconnecting of the feeding tubes. Nancy Cruzan died several days later.

Personal Comments

My individual thoughts on this case is that family had the right to make the decision to remove life-saving hydration and nutrition when she was in a permanent vegetative state, and there was no hope for ever coming back from this or surviving other than being a vegetable The Physician should want their families wishes and removing the feed tube. The brain cannot survive without oxygen, and when she was in her car accident, she was without oxygen for 12 to 14 minutes according to the doctors. The doctors knew when they ask the husband to do a gastric feeding tube and hydration tube there was no hope of her ever coming out of a permanent vegetative state. From 1983 to 1990 she was in a vegetative state with somebody had to do everything for her, and that is no quality of life. I believe the roommate statement when she said they had talked about that she would never want to live like that that should have been enough evidence plus the family to be able to remove life is just stating help. I do not believe and physician-assisted suicide when there are other options, but in this case, there were no options she was going to live for 30 more years needing constant care and never able to have a real life. I strongly support the Court's decision to remove the feeding tube to let her die and peace. This did have a huge impact on society because this was the first right-to-die case and because of this case, we now have DNR's and living wills to show people's wishes if this would ever happen to them. If we do not have this people's wishes would never be able to be heard if they had something like this and they were in a coma or persistent vegetative state.

Both the family and the state of Missouri had arguments on both sides both of family and the state of Missouri arguments on both sides. The family takes the stance that they neglected to consider the pain and suffering of Nancy and the family knew what was best for her care. The state of Missouri had on qualified interest in preserving of life regardless of the patient's condition removing the feeding tube would be constitutional murder under the law. The opinions of both the positive and negative access of legal arguments are mainly positive because this created the advanced Healthcare directive which allows a patient to do a living will and also a DNR to tells what the patient wishes are, so they can be honored when they are in a vegetative state or a coma.

Answer 1

Have corrected the Facts bit only: As others could not be made out.

Facts

1. This case is about patient’s disclosure to physician about the right to die. The case is about a thirty-two-year-old Nancy Cruz, who was in a persistent vegetative state since 1983 and could not order the physician to remove artificial nutrition. In 1983 she met with a car accident, and she was found face down in a ditch without any respiratory or cardiac function. She had been unconscious due to the accident but paramedics were able to restore her breathing and her heart functioning on the site itself.

On reaching the hospital the neurologist said that she had suffered a cerebral contusion and her brain was without oxygen for about 12 to 14 minutes. In the initial phases, she was able to ingest some food orally but that stopped, and then the surgeon implanted a gastro feeding tube with the consent of her husband. She did not improve till December 1990, when she was declared in a persistent vegetative state which is permanent and irreversible. The doctor had said she still had 30 more years to live, but she would never be able to come out of the vegetative state. Her parents made a tough decision and asked the hospital staff to cut all artificial nutrition and hydration process to let her die, but the Hospital refused this. Fix State trial court said that she still had the fundamental rights and can make her own decision. During the trial her former roommate stated that they had a conversation that said if she was ever sick, she would want to stay alive in a vegetative state. The case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which sustained the lower Court's decision. The parents were not entitled to bear her treatment under the Mississippi living will. The roommate's statements did not authorize enough clarity to convince what she would have wanted.

In June 1990 the Supreme Court heard the case and said most States are using common law to inform consent and they have the right to refuse treatment. The Supreme Court looked at the 14th Amendment to find a person has a constitutional right to deny life-saving hydration and nutrition. After the Supreme Court heard the case, they returned to the Missouri court and November 14th, 1990 judge Charles Teel authorized the Physicians to remove the feeding tube. Then on December the 26th 1990 two weeks after the feeding tube was removed Nancy Cruzan died. What was made of this lawsuit is the family wanted her to die, when in reality there was nothing else that they could have done to help prolong her life and let her wake up so she could live her life normally.