ABSTRACT
In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate on the fate of Karen Ann Quinlan, and its decision spurred the world’s lawyers, bioethicists, health professionals and, indeed, patients into carving the contours of the endof-life debates that we continue to engage in today. Ms Quinlan had been diagnosed as being in what was then termed a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Her prognosis was not good: she would not recover higher brain function and so would never again participate in life in any meaningful way. Her brain stem was, however, functioning and her body could be sustained by medical means, including the use of a mechanical ventilator. The question for the court was: should this machine continue to help Ms Quinlan breathe or would it be lawful for the doctors to stop the respirator?
