Surrogate Decision Making: Quinlan, Cruzan, and Schiavo

What happens when a patient cannot speak for themselves? When they are in a coma, or a persistent vegetative state, who gets to decide their fate? The family? The doctors? The courts?

These questions were answered through a series of landmark cases that transformed American law and created the legal hierarchy of surrogate decision-making we use today. The cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Terri Schiavo were not just legal battles; they were national spectacles that forced America to define the right to die.

The Core Principle

The foundational legal principle is that you do not lose your constitutional rights just because you lose consciousness. Your right to privacy and bodily integrity remains intact. The problem is execution: How do you exercise your right to refuse treatment when you cannot speak?

Someone must speak for you. But who? And what criteria should they use? Should they say what they want for you, or what you would have wanted for yourself?

Before these landmark cases, this was a gray area left largely to physician discretion. The cases that followed created structure, precedent, and protection.

Karen Ann Quinlan

In 1975, twenty-one-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan fell into a coma after consuming alcohol and Valium at a party. She suffered severe brain damage and entered a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). She was awake—her eyes were open—but she was unaware of her environment. She was kept alive by a ventilator.

After months of no improvement, her parents, Joseph and Julia Quinlan, devout Catholics, consulted their priest. They decided that keeping her on the machine was "extraordinary means" and morally optional under Catholic doctrine. They asked the doctors to turn off the ventilator and let her pass.

The doctors refused—not because they were cruel, but because they were terrified. In 1975, disconnecting a ventilator from a living body looked a lot like homicide to a prosecutor. They forced the parents to go to court.

The Quinlan Ruling

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a historic ruling. They stated that Karen's right to privacy allowed her to refuse treatment, and since she was incompetent, that right could be exercised on her behalf by her guardian—her father.

The court effectively held that the state has no interest in forcing the prolongation of a vegetative life. The decision belonged to the family, not the state.

Crucially, the court suggested that hospitals create "Ethics Committees" to handle these cases internally so families would not have to endure the trauma of a trial. This ruling birthed the modern hospital ethics committee.

Karen was removed from the ventilator. Surprisingly, she continued breathing on her own. She lived for another nine years in her vegetative state before dying of pneumonia. But the legal precedent was set.

Nancy Cruzan

Fast forward to 1990. Nancy Cruzan was a young woman thrown from her car in a wreck. She ended up in a PVS. Unlike Quinlan, she could breathe on her own. She was kept alive by a feeding tube—Artificial Nutrition and Hydration.

Her parents wanted the tube removed, arguing Nancy would not want to live like a "vegetable." The state of Missouri intervened. They argued two things: First, that food and water are basic care, not medical treatment. Second, that without a written Living Will, the parents' word was not enough.

Missouri demanded "Clear and Convincing Evidence" of Nancy's wishes.

The Supreme Court Decision

The case went to the United States Supreme Court—the first time the high court addressed the "Right to Die."

The Court ruled two things. First, they affirmed that a feeding tube is medical treatment, just like a ventilator or dialysis, and therefore can be refused. This was a huge victory for bioethics.

But second, they ruled that a state has the right to demand "Clear and Convincing Evidence" of the patient's wishes before allowing withdrawal. Missouri was allowed to err on the side of life.

The Cruzan family had to return to court and find old friends who testified that Nancy had explicitly said she would not want to live that way. Once that testimony was heard, the tube was removed. Nancy died twelve days later.

The Hierarchy of Standards

These cases established a hierarchy of decision-making standards that clinicians use today:

1. Subjective Standard (Gold Standard)

Did the patient write it down? An Advance Directive or Living Will is the best evidence. When a patient has documented their wishes in writing, that document speaks with the patient's own voice.

2. Substituted Judgment

If no written directive exists, we move to substituted judgment. The surrogate stands in the patient's shoes and says: "I know my mother. She loved independence. She hated machines. Based on her values, she would refuse this."

We are reconstructing the patient's voice based on their known values, beliefs, and prior statements.

3. Best Interest Standard

If we do not know the patient's values—say, a John Doe brought unconscious to the emergency department, or a person with severe lifelong cognitive disability who never expressed preferences—we use the Best Interest Standard.

We objectively weigh the burdens of pain against the benefits of continued life. This is the lowest standard and the most controversial, because it requires others to judge the value of someone else's life.

Terri Schiavo

The Schiavo case tore the country apart. Terri was a young woman who collapsed in her home and ended up in a PVS. Her husband, Michael, argued for substituted judgment—that Terri had told him she would not want to live that way.

Her parents, the Schindlers, argued she was responsive and wanted to live. It became a war between the spouse and the parents.

Legally, the spouse is typically the next-of-kin and has priority as decision-maker. The courts consistently sided with Michael over fifteen years of litigation. But Congress and the President intervened, passing extraordinary laws to try to keep her alive.

Ultimately, the autopsy proved she had massive, irreversible brain damage—she was blind and her brain had withered to half its size. The medical facts vindicated the diagnosis, but the political scar remained.

The Importance of Naming a Proxy

The tragedy of Schiavo underscores one major policy lesson: Everyone needs a Health Care Proxy (also called a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare).

You need to name the specific person you trust to speak for you. If you name a proxy, that person speaks with your authority, and the state generally cannot intervene.

If you do not name a proxy, the state appoints one from a statutory list—usually Spouse, then Adult Children, then Parents. If you are estranged from your spouse or parents, that statutory list can be a disaster.

The best way to protect your autonomy is to choose your surrogate before you need one.

Current State of the Law

Today, Advance Directives are legally binding in all fifty states. We also have new tools like POLST forms—Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment—which are medical orders that travel with the patient.

POLST forms translate patient wishes into bright, visible instructions for paramedics: "Do Not Resuscitate" or "Do Not Intubate." They bridge the gap between the patient's stated wishes and emergency medical response.

The goal of all this policy is to ensure that the patient's voice is heard even when their voice is silenced.

The Difficulty of Prediction

Surrogate decision-making remains imperfect. Research shows that family members often predict patient preferences incorrectly—they project their own values rather than accurately representing the patient's.

Families fight. Surrogates sometimes choose based on their own grief rather than the patient's values. Guilt, religious beliefs, financial interests, and denial all complicate decision-making.

But it is the best system we have for honoring the individual. The alternative—leaving decisions entirely to physicians or the state—removes the patient from the equation entirely.

Practical Implications

Several practical lessons emerge from these cases:

Document your wishes. Even informal conversations leave evidence. But formal Advance Directives provide the clearest guidance.

Choose your proxy carefully. Select someone who knows your values and can advocate for them under pressure—not necessarily your closest relative.

Have the conversation. Talk to your proxy about your values, not just specific scenarios. What makes life meaningful to you? Under what circumstances would you want treatment stopped?

Review periodically. Values change. Medical conditions change. Update your documents and conversations as your circumstances evolve.

Conclusion

We have moved from a world where doctors decided the end of life to a world where families decide, guided by the patient's prior wishes. It is an imperfect system. But it represents a profound commitment to the principle that each person's life belongs to them—even when they can no longer speak.

The cases of Quinlan, Cruzan, and Schiavo were painful, public, and politically charged. But they created the legal framework that now protects millions of patients and families facing impossible decisions. The right to die is, ultimately, an extension of the right to live on one's own terms.

Deepen Your End-of-Life Ethics Knowledge

This article is part of our comprehensive Free Bioethics and Healthcare Policy Course. Watch the full video lectures to explore surrogate decision-making through detailed case analysis and legal frameworks.

Additional Resources:

• Research Ethics Checklist - Consider surrogate consent issues when designing research involving incapacitated populations.

• Research Question Builder - Frame questions about end-of-life care and decision-making authority.

Navigate complex surrogate decisions. Our Research Assistant provides guidance on advance directive interpretation, surrogate decision-making standards, and end-of-life ethics.