can you fix the grammar

Issue(s)

The laws that were Jeanine broken in this case is common law anddenying her 14th Amendment liberties finding that a competentperson has the Constitutional protection in right grounds in a dutyto process cause to refuse hydration and nutrition if so chosen. Atthis time the lower courts were fine common law of Missouri inMissouri's living will. This court was one of them that had to goto the Supreme Court because this affected the whole nation.

5. Decision/Holding (READ THIS AND HELP ME REWORD THIS IDK HOWTO FIX IT )

The Court ruled that the State of Missouri could prohibit theCruzan family from removing feeding tubes from Nancy because therewas no clear evidence that she would have wanted medical treatmentstopped. The decision of the Court in Cruzan indicated the Court'sprimary concern with the preservation of life, even at the expenseof "family sovereignty."

A living will prohibit prolonged tube feeding and mechanicalrespiration, or resuscitation—restarting the heart by artificialmeans. In many States, a legal order called a "power of attorney"allows a friend or relative to speak on a person's behalf when atraumatic injury occurs. They when to the supreme court they saidheld that the right-to-die issues should be divided under state lawand is subject to due process. After the Court upheld the right ofMissouri to demand "clear and convincing evidence," a new hearingwas held before a Missouri court to determine Nancy Cruzan's fate.After hearing testimony, a State judge authorized the disconnectingof the feeding tubes. Nancy Cruzan died several days later.

Personal Comments

My individual thoughts on this case is that family had the rightto make the decision to remove life-saving hydration and nutritionwhen she was in a permanent vegetative state, and there was no hopefor ever coming back from this or surviving other than being avegetable The Physician should want their families wishes andremoving the feed tube. The brain cannot survive without oxygen,and when she was in her car accident, she was without oxygen for 12to 14 minutes according to the doctors. The doctors knew when theyask the husband to do a gastric feeding tube and hydration tubethere was no hope of her ever coming out of a permanent vegetativestate. From 1983 to 1990 she was in a vegetative state withsomebody had to do everything for her, and that is no quality oflife. I believe the roommate statement when she said they hadtalked about that she would never want to live like that thatshould have been enough evidence plus the family to be able toremove life is just stating help. I do not believe andphysician-assisted suicide when there are other options, but inthis case, there were no options she was going to live for 30 moreyears needing constant care and never able to have a real life. Istrongly support the Court's decision to remove the feeding tube tolet her die and peace. This did have a huge impact on societybecause this was the first right-to-die case and because of thiscase, we now have DNR's and living wills to show people's wishes ifthis would ever happen to them. If we do not have this people'swishes would never be able to be heard if they had something likethis and they were in a coma or persistent vegetative state.

Both the family and the state of Missouri had arguments on bothsides both of family and the state of Missouri arguments on bothsides. The family takes the stance that they neglected to considerthe pain and suffering of Nancy and the family knew what was bestfor her care. The state of Missouri had on qualified interest inpreserving of life regardless of the patient's condition removingthe feeding tube would be constitutional murder under the law. Theopinions of both the positive and negative access of legalarguments are mainly positive because this created the advancedHealthcare directive which allows a patient to do a living will andalso a DNR to tells what the patient wishes are, so they can behonored when they are in a vegetative state or a coma.