Cruzan v. MO Dept. of Health
People are born with natural rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which the Constitution protects. Nancy Cruzan lost her ability to express and revel in her natural rights when a tragic car accident left her severely debilitated and in a ‘persistent vegetative state.’ Nancy Cruzan’s parents requested that their daughter be removed from a machine distributing artificial nutrition and hydration that kept her alive. Nancy’s parents strongly believed that pursuing a ‘plan of medical treatment that allows nature to take its course and permits [her] to die with dignity’ would be the most just decision for her (Cruzan v. Mo Dept of Health (Brennan, J., dissenting)). However, the majority of Justices …show more content…
The New Jersey Supreme Court gave specific rights to the Quinlans that were not granted to the Cruzans. Along with the ability to be regarded as guardians over their daughter, the Quinlans also did not have the undue burden to present evidence as did the Supreme Court on the Cruzans. The State of Missouri would have allowed the Cruzan’s to remove Nancy from the machines if there was ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that she would no longer wish to be reliant on them. The Cruzan’s knew that Nancy did not want to end up as a ‘vegetable,’ to which her former housemate testified that she said approximately a year before. The State of Missouri did not believe that was strong enough evidence, which placed an undue burden on her and her parents, to scramble to find stronger evidence. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for the State to place an undue burden on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Self-determination is constitutionally protected right, to which the Cruzan’s tried to carry out on their daughter’s behalf. Therefore, for the State of Missouri to make it additionally difficult to prove that Nancy’s wishes were against the becoming of a ‘vegetable’ is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process
People are born with natural rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which the Constitution protects. Nancy Cruzan lost her ability to express and revel in her natural rights when a tragic car accident left her severely debilitated and in a ‘persistent vegetative state.’ Nancy Cruzan’s parents requested that their daughter be removed from a machine distributing artificial nutrition and hydration that kept her alive. Nancy’s parents strongly believed that pursuing a ‘plan of medical treatment that allows nature to take its course and permits [her] to die with dignity’ would be the most just decision for her (Cruzan v. Mo Dept of Health (Brennan, J., dissenting)). However, the majority of Justices …show more content…
The New Jersey Supreme Court gave specific rights to the Quinlans that were not granted to the Cruzans. Along with the ability to be regarded as guardians over their daughter, the Quinlans also did not have the undue burden to present evidence as did the Supreme Court on the Cruzans. The State of Missouri would have allowed the Cruzan’s to remove Nancy from the machines if there was ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that she would no longer wish to be reliant on them. The Cruzan’s knew that Nancy did not want to end up as a ‘vegetable,’ to which her former housemate testified that she said approximately a year before. The State of Missouri did not believe that was strong enough evidence, which placed an undue burden on her and her parents, to scramble to find stronger evidence. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for the State to place an undue burden on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Self-determination is constitutionally protected right, to which the Cruzan’s tried to carry out on their daughter’s behalf. Therefore, for the State of Missouri to make it additionally difficult to prove that Nancy’s wishes were against the becoming of a ‘vegetable’ is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process