The supreme court in in re quinlan discussed karen’s right to privacy at length. what documents and precedent did the court look to in order to establish karen’s legal right to privacy? how did the court evaluate the interests of the state in light of karen’s right to privacy? because karen could not assert her rights, how did the court ultimately reason that these rights should be asserted?

In Re Quinlan, the first judicial decision to hold the life-sustaining medical treatments is taken. It is suggested that in appropriate circumstances, where the patient is unconscious or could not decide for herself, the court can decide to withhold treatment. The Quinlan decision added that in addition to a patient’s right to refuse a life-sustaining treatment, the removal of life support systems for an incompetent patient is also allowed and is not homicide or medical malpractice.  

Explanation:

The decision is taken on response to the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, aged 22, who stopped breathing and lapse into a coma. This patient was not only in comatose but also has chronic persistent vegetative state and needs respirator to survive. Every state appellate followed the New Jersey court decision allowing Karen Quinlan’s parents to withhold life-sustaining treatment for their comatose daughter.  

Since her comatose in the year 1975, Karen survived with a respirator for more than a year before her parents wished to disconnect the respirator. Quinlan’s father first sought judicial approval in the lower court for removing the respirator but the court refused. Later, Quinlan’s father appealed against the decision to the New Jersey Supreme court which firstly determined the lower court judgment on the basis of patient’s decision to continue life-sustaining treatment which is a part of patient’s privacy act. This privacy act is in continuation a to woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy if she wishes so. The court then proceeded to weigh this patient privacy rights against the state’s interest in preserving a life by relying on medical judgment to continue or withdraw treatment. The court found that with increase in degree of bodily invasion the prognosis for patient recovery decreases. Hence, Quinlan has no chance of recovering from her chronic persistent vegetative state and the respirator shall be discontinued even if the consequence is dying.  

In this decision, Quinlan was not conscious to make the decision and Quinlan’s father does not have the right to invade patient privacy. However, the court concluded that Quinlan’s father and family could decide but the decision shall be acceptable for majority of people i.e. they should have made the same decision if they were on the dying bed themselves.  

The Quinlan’s decision was cited as the best decision for giving right to die and offering freedom to medical profession from civil liability and malpractice issues when the decision taken is in the best interest of people. This decision re-phrased the patient privacy law and enabled US state medical authorities to grant authority to patient’s parents or guardians to decide in their best interest when the patient is not conscious or cannot decide for themselves.  

answer:

its probable on the floor if it fell off.

answer:

Possibly

Explanation:

Depends on which platform you are using for communication