Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The Quinlan case revisited.

Joel Frader

    Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
    |July 1, 1996
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Widening the Zone of Parental Discretion for Intimate, Home Based Therapies.

    The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
    Same author

    Associations of Patient and Parent Characteristics With Parental Decision Regret in the PICU: A Secondary Analysis of the 2015-2017 Navigate Randomized Comparative Trial.

    Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies·2024
    Same author

    Bridge or Destination: Ethical Complexity, Emotional Unrest.

    The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2023
    Same author

    Parental Views of Social Worker and Chaplain Involvement in Care and Decision Making for Critically Ill Children with Cancer.

    Children (Basel, Switzerland)·2022
    Same author

    A charitable access program for patients with lysosomal storage disorders in underserved communities worldwide.

    Orphanet journal of rare diseases·2021
    Same author

    A Randomized Comparative Trial to Evaluate a PICU Navigator-Based Parent Support Intervention.

    Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies·2020

    Physicians and legal counsel feared liability when stopping artificial life support. However, complex ethical and legal questions surrounding end-of-life care remain unresolved, suggesting minimal need for legal revision.

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Ethics
    • Legal Medicine
    • Bioethics

    Background:

    • The Quinlan case highlighted fears of prosecution and civil liability among physicians and hospitals regarding artificial life support.
    • Significant psychosocial, economic, and philosophical questions surrounding the cessation of artificial life support were present in the 1970s.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze the enduring ethical and legal complexities of artificial life support withdrawal.
    • To evaluate the necessity of revising legal history in light of unresolved end-of-life care debates.

    Main Methods:

    • Historical legal and ethical analysis of the Quinlan case and its aftermath.
    • Review of medical-legal precedents and philosophical discourse on end-of-life decisions.
    Keywords:
    Death and EuthanasiaIn re QuinlanLegal ApproachPresident's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Concerns regarding legal liability for discontinuing artificial life support persist among medical professionals.
    • The core psychosocial, economic, and philosophical issues related to stopping artificial life support remain unsettled.

    Conclusions:

    • The fundamental ethical and legal questions surrounding artificial life support cessation have not been resolved since the Quinlan case.
    • Current legal frameworks may not require substantial revision due to the persistent nature of these complex end-of-life ethical and legal dilemmas.