Talk:Karen Ann Quinlan

Removed

Removed the following broken link. "Karen Ann Quinlan Hospice, History page - for a more personal and extensive history (also accessible via the first link)." -- Morgan Leigh 04:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the target site was redesigned. I've fixed the link location. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 08:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Right to Die?

Is the term right to die a npov? I think that euthanasia should replace it. I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry if this is stupid suggestion. ~Dan

Or Quaaludes (Methaqualone)

Someone needs to verify what drug(s) were in her system. Poor girl. Learner001 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Nearly a month of age, there does not appear to be any consensus on the near horizon. Editors may want to pursue other means of improving this article and its title. (non-admin closure)  Paine  ^u/c 15:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Karen Ann Quinlan → Karen Ann Quinlan case – Subject did nothing notable. What is notable is the legal case. 172.56.0.29 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Analogous to Jahi McMath case, Joseph Maraachli case, Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant controversy or Terri Schiavo case. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title should accurately reflect the subject of the article, and this title currently does exactly that. This article is about the person in structure and content. If you think we should have an article on just the case, then that's not just a title issue, but primarily an article content issue. Perhaps the best way to do that is to establish consensus here on the talk page that the article should be changed like that, and change the content and title together. That said, count me as being in opposition to the idea of transforming this article like that, and also opposed to the general idea that people like Karen Ann Quinlan are not sufficiently notable to have articles about them. Yes, it's just the case that made her notable, but notable it did make her. --В²C ☎ 22:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. WP:BIO1E is the relevant policy here. Quinlan was only notable for the case surrounding her coma and death, so the title change is appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Per the below, the proposed title would be confusing considering the existence of In re Quinlan. It would probably be better to merge both articles into one on the case (preferably with a more recognizable title than "In re Quinlan"). I suggest moving this article to Karen Ann Quinlan case and merging In re Quinlan into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BIO1E. This could never be a balanced biographical article, as too much weight will always be given to the case. Still, much of the content here can be retained if the article is reframed. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• PLEASE NOTE: I found that a separate article for this legal case has existed for many years. I have already created a subsection in this article titled "Appeal" with a {{main}} to that article. I also created the redirect Karen Ann Quinlan case to point to the legal case article. Perhaps we should change this from a requested move to a merge.--Judtojud (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - we dont move articles based on overall consensus for articles. we move them on separate basis, clearly this article subject would not benefit from being moved. The proposed title would not reflect the subject.BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See Nancy Cruzan case.--172.56.0.210 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BIO1E (and merge In re Quinlan if other agree). —  AjaxSmack  23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "Karen Ann Quinlan case" is In re Quinlan, so the proposed title isn't going to work. I think there could be a good case (pun intended) for a merger, but I feel the best venue to sort that out would be AFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While your concerns about process are understandable, an AfD might fail over concerns about the loss of page history and attribution requirements.--208.54.64.205 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As stated, there is already a page about In re Quinlan. Based on BIO1E issues, this article needs to be merged with the case article. Karen Ann Quinlan case has already been created as a redirect to In re Quinlan (the proper legal title of the case), so the only action to consider here is a merge of this article's contents to In re... WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose?!? You support a merge but oppose a move? Are you hairsplitting or did you maybe type in the wrong vote? If we give up on this relisted conrnsus-building effort, I hope we might, in any subsequant AfD, highlight the BIO1E feedback accumulated here and mention that this article is practically an orphan in Article namespace.--208.54.64.194 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@208.54.64.194: I oppose a move to the title Karen Ann Quinlan case, as that is not the correct name of the court case. And since there is already a page named In re Quinlan (which is the proper title for the court case), this page cannot be moved to that title. But the content from this page can be merged to the In re Quinlan article. Is there something unclear about that? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your words "the content from this page can be merged" can be interpretted as "it is possible that the content from this page can be merged" which is not a very useful observation because most of us already know that. Would you please indicate in such words whether you support or oppose a merge?--208.54.64.205 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@208.54.64.205: The topic of this discussion is a requested move. I oppose the requested move. I cannot be clearer about that. I support a merge, but as this is not a discussion about a proposed merge, that support is not relevant to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--208.54.64.205 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed new name is already the topic In re Quinlan. This article should either remain here as a biography or it should be deleted because Quinlan is only famous for the case. The decision should be made at AfD. Regarding the suggestion of a merge, the legal case article should of course carry a minimal biography of the person, but it should never be made to carry all the information of a normal biography. So I oppose a merge. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Heavily-trafficked / high-interest topics such as Karen Ann Quinlan or Terri Schiavo may have two or more articles forked from the main entry. Terry Schiavo, as a particularly illustrative case in point, has 1) Terri Schiavo timeline, 2) Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case, 3) Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, 4) Schiavo memo and 5) Palm Sunday Compromise in addition to the main article, which was renamed from Terri Schiavo to Terri Schiavo case (Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 52#Requested move), analogous to the proposal for renaming Karen Ann Quinlan →‎ Karen Ann Quinlan case, which would contain biographical material, media interest and other details, while the other remaining article, In re Quinlan, would contain details about the legal case. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If you search for "quinlan cruzan schiavo" you will find that some scholars treat these three cases as if they form some sort of set. When you search via Google for each full name separately, you get at the top of page 1 of the results a box of information based on Google Knowledge Graph. At the top of the box is the name and then a subtitle. The subtitle for Cruzan is "Court case" and the subtitle for Schiavo is "Legal case". For Qunlan, the subtitle is left blank. I expect that this is because the first sentence of this article declares her to be a woman and does not declare her occupation. Just like page names matter, first sentences matter. Well maybe this discussion will close soon with "no consensus" or "technical obstacle" or whatever and we can talk about a merge. I do not think an AfD would succeed because of all of the WikiProjects included at the top of this talk page. It would go on all those noticeboards and they would Oppose just to defend their territory.--172.56.1.165 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The choice of where the redirect Karen Ann Quinlan case pointed to was short-sighted. That redirect points back to this page. No technical obstacle exists for the proposed move. If closing afmin opts to do the move, then a proposed merge of In re Quinlan into this page will be the least disruptive pathway.--172.56.33.249 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The technical obstacle is actually that the target has more than 1 revision, so a direct WP:MOR cannot happen for non-admins. — Andy W. (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

KQ Pregnancy

Why is this not mentioned? The debate over the decision to abort her spilled over into a large philosophical debate and led to the creation of hospital ethics committees. I came here to find out whether conception happened before or after her collapse, and whether it was aborted or not. Verdana♥Bold 07:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that back up a pregnancy at all. There was a pregnant woman (Rosemarie Maniscalco) who became comatose a couple of years after Quinlan, and her family was represented by the attorney who represented Quinlan's parents, but that's where the connection ends, as far as I can tell. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)