Karen Ann Quinlan was placed in a persistent vegetative state in 1975 at age 21 after consuming alcohol and drugs which caused brain damage from lack of oxygen. Her parents sought to remove her from life support but faced legal challenges. The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1976 that her father could decide to remove life support, establishing patients' right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Karen was removed from the ventilator and lived for another 9 years in a nursing home before dying of pneumonia in 1985.

1. Karen A. Quinlan
1954-1985

2. About Karen
Karen Ann Quinlan was an important figure in the
history of the right to die controversy in the United
States.
At the age of 21 she became unconscious after
arriving home from a party. It was later discovered
that Karen had consumed diazepam (Vallum),
dextroproxphene (used to treat mild pains) and
alcohol causing her to collapse and stop breathing
twice for 15 minutes or more before the paramedics
could arrive and take her to the hospital.

3. What is PVS?
This lack of oxygen for an extended period caused
Quinlan to suffer irreversible brain damage. Her brain
was damaged to the extent that she entered a persistent
vegetative state. A state of completely altered
consciousness.
• Eyes no longer moved in the same direction together
• EEG showed only abnormal slow-wave activity
• Weight lose-final weight 80 pounds
• Prone to unpredictable, violent thrashing of limbs
• Nasogastric feeding was given and a ventilator to
assist with breathing

4. After the Diagnosis
Once she arrived at the hospital and was
diagnosed as PVS she was kept alive on a
ventilator for several months without
improvement. Not long after the Quinlans
made the decision to have Karen removed
from life support, however, it was discovered
that in order to carry out their wishes, they
needed to petition the court.

5. Why?
In 1975 the American Medical Association
(AMA) considered removing Karen from the
ventilator as euthanasia which equaled
murder. At this time there was no federal or
state court clarifying the rights of competent
dying patients or incompetent patients. The
physicians who would perform the removal
feared that the Quinlans would regret their
decision and sue them for malpractice.

6. The Ruling
Hospital officials, faced with threats from the Morris
County prosecutor to bring homicide charges against
them, joined with the Quinlan family in seeking an
appropriate protective order from the courts, before
allowing the respirator to be removed. New Jersey
Superior Court Judge Robert Muir Jr. denied their
request in November 1975. There was no Advance
Directive proving what Karen’s final wishes were and
the U.S. Constitution did not define the “Right to
Die”.

7. Appeal
The Quinlan family appealed the ruling to the
New Jersey Supreme Court which ruled in
their favor. On March 31, 1976, the New
Jersey Supreme Court rendered a
unanimous decision appointing Joe Quinlan
as the personal guardian of their daughter
Karen with the right to determine her medical
treatment, including the right to discontinue
all extraordinary means of life support.

8. After the Appeal
After much negotiation between the Quinlans
and hospital staff, Karen Ann was weaned
from the machine that had pumped air into
her lungs for over one year. It took five days.
But Karen kept breathing. She was moved to
Morris View Nursing Home in June 1976.
She was to breathe on her own for another
nine years before dying on June 11, 1985 of
pneumonia.

9. Karen A. Quinlan Hospice
Center
• Karen’s Quinlan’s family opened a hospice center in
1980 named after her.
• The family was able to open this center with the money
made off of the Quinlan’s book.
• Every patient is treated regardless of their ability to
pay.
• Their goal is to ensure the patient is in peace and pain
free.
• http://youtu.be/mv0KxHVSlI0

10. Conclusion
• This was the first U.S. court case to change the history of
the right to die. After this case, living wills have became
more popular.
• The ruling gave patients and their families the right to live
and die with dignity.
• Current NJ Law/Ruling Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A
2d 647 (1976), was the first major judicial decision to
hold that life sustaining medical treatments may be
discontinued inappropriate circumstances, even if the
patient is unable or incompetent to make the decision.

11. Conclusion
• The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision has been followed
by
nearly every state appellate court to consider the issue. In add
ition to establishing a patient's right to refuse life
sustaining medical treatments.
• The Quinlan decision made clear that a decision to remove or
withhold life support systems from an incompetent patient
would not constitute Homicide or Medical Malpractice.
This is important to note because the ruling also protects the
medical profession from criminal prosecution and civil liability
when removing life support from patients in a chronically
vegetative state.

12. Works Cited
• http://www.karenannquinlanhospice.org
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan
• Gregory E Pence “Medical Ethics Accounts of Ground-
Breaking Cases”
• http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+Re+Quinlan
For more information about the Quinlan Case you can read the
actual court document
@https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-
jackson/In%20re%20Quinlan,%2070%20N.J.%2010,%20355%
20A.2d%20647%20(1976).pdf