What is the Law if I Sustained a Brain Injury?

Brain injuries carry a sort of morbid fascination. To the healthy, the brain is everything: it controls the conscious and the subconscious. We literally would not be ourselves without it. So, when someone suffers a brain injury and is left in a coma or other vegetative state, our natural curiosity, even empathy, is activated. What is that person feeling right now? What decisions will we as a society make on their behalf? And, rightfully so, you may ask: what is the law if I sustained a brain injury? There is a rich, and, in some cases, highly publicized history of brain injury cases. Here are some of the best-known legal disputes.

Karen Quinlan

Though not a brain injury, Karen Quinlan’s case was one of the earliest that dealt with handling extremely severe injuries. In 1975, Quinlan suffered a respiratory arrest; in other words, she lost the ability to breathe on her own accord. She was quickly resuscitated, but doctors left her on an artificial ventilator in a vegetative state. After a time, Quinlan’s parents requested that the ventilator be removed, but her doctors refused for fear of homicide charges. The Quinlan’s brought a suit to the New Jersey Supreme Court, arguing that the family’s right to privacy overrules medical intervention when no living will exists. The NJSC sided with the Quinlans, and Karen's ventilator was removed. However, Karen was in a vegetative state (rather than a coma) and was surprisingly able to continue breathing on her own. She lived in a nursing home for 10 more years.

Terry Schiavo

Surely the most famous case of legal rights for someone in a vegetative state, Terry Schiavo was a household name throughout the early aughts. In 1990, Schiavo suffered a cardiac arrest that left her in a vegetative state. Her husband Michael became her legal guardian, with no objection from Schiavo’s parents. After 6 total years of various therapies, Terry’s state had not improved and she was transferred to a nursing home; a year after that, Michael, having seen the evidence to suggest Schiavo was is a permanent vegetative state, sought to have her feeding tube removed. This case differs from Quinlan’s in that, rather than the doctors appealing the decision to remove life-support, Schiavo’s own parents took legal action to continue her life. The initial suit ruled in favour of Michael, citing the lack of evidence to suggest Schiavo could recover. However, Schiavo’s parents lodged appeals that eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States and lasted 8 years. SCOTUS ultimately sided with Michael and upheld the decision to remove the feeding tube. Schiavo died peacefully and painlessly in March of 2005.