Cruzan V. Missouri Essay
Constitutionally, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a right to every person. However, conflict arises when it comes to defining and implementing life as the ability to life a functional life. In my opinion, the family is justified to have Cruzan die provided she is still in a life support and chances of making it are slim.
Nancy is unconscious with a non functioning brain and is not speaking hence cannot make her own decision. The family may wish to no longer have their child remain under life support while still her chances of survival are narrow. I agree with the family to have physician take the life of their child. This is because she told her roommates about it and also has been in the life support for years now.
Although it may be hard to access the veracity of the roommate’s words, the family has a right to use the time she has remained on life support to conclude that she should die. The truth is, if the roommate’s veracity is not defined and Cruzan makes it but lives sick she would be at risk of taking her life.
The case seems complicated, but still the family, who using the instructions for doctors, knows how high the chances of survival are have the right to request for her life termination. Although the law is there to protect its citizens, there are instances such as this where it oppresses its citizens at their expense yet with the ability to equally do otherwise. For the living, a will is the best way out.
Despite the court’s decision, the case generally has great control over the health system. A living will however is important to make health decisions that concern them. Others include advanced directives and power of attorney. Complications result from the non existence of such documents. The court should also consider the quality of life and not just life when enforcing the life liberty and pursuit of happiness law.
From the articles provided