Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In the Matter of Karen Quinlan, an Alleged Incompetent

348 A.2d 801, 137 N.J. Super. 227 (1975)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

In the Matter of Karen Quinlan, an Alleged Incompetent

New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division

348 A.2d 801, 137 N.J. Super. 227 (1975)

Facts

In 1975, 21-year-old Karen Quinlan was rushed to the hospital unconscious and unable to breathe on her own. The cause of Karen’s condition was unknown, and blood and urine tests showed normal or therapeutic levels of drugs in her system. Despite medical care, Karen remained in a comatose condition known as a persistent vegetative state and dependent on a ventilator. Karen’s physician, Dr. Robert Morse, knew of no treatment that could reverse Karen’s condition but could not say that her condition was irreversible. Karen was not technically brain dead, and some unknown level of recovery was possible. At first, Karen’s distraught parents wanted Dr. Morse to spare no effort in keeping their daughter alive in hopes she might recover. Karen’s parents were active in her care, receiving daily reports on her condition. As time progressed, the reports of her condition were disheartening. Eventually, Karen’s parents and siblings came to the agonizing conclusion that it was best to remove artificial means of life support, such as the respirator, and to allow nature to take its course. Karen’s family recalled how Karen had stated, on three occasions, that she would not want to kept alive by artificial methods. After consultation with his priest, Karen’s father, Joseph Quinlan (plaintiff), signed a release authorizing the removal of life support. Karen’s family thought their wishes would be followed. However, Dr. Morse did not agree with removal of the respirator. When removal was suddenly brought up, Dr. Morse indicated he wanted time to review the matter. Upon review, Dr. Morse’s research showed termination of breathing support to be a significant deviation from standard medical practice. Joseph then petitioned a court to appoint him as guardian of his daughter’s person and property. Joseph petitioned the court to authorize the discontinuance of all life support for Karen, to prevent the doctors and the county prosecutor from intervening, and to prevent prosecution for homicide once Karen was removed from the respirator. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for Karen. The state of New Jersey (defendant) intervened through its attorney general.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Muir, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership