Cruzan V. Missouri Department Of Health Case Study

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

There were protestors who stood outside of the hospital that Cruzan was in, who felt very differently than Cruzan’s parents regarding Nancy’s situation. Protestors argued that the parents were starving their daughter to death. Protestors camped outside of the hospital and held prayer sessions in her honor. On December 18, 1990, nineteen protestors were actually arrested for attempting to enter the hospital to reattach Cruzan’s feeding tube after it was removed. Some of the protestors went to court seven times to have the court re-inforce Cruzan’s feeding tube, but they were denied because they had no legal standing to intervene. (Lewin, 1990). Arrests were made for unlawful assembly and trespassing charges. The protestors were

The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another

After declaring Jahi McMath brain dead, the doctors at the Children’s Hospital ordered her to be taken off mechanical ventilation. Her mother, Latasha Winkfield, refused to accept that her daughter was dead and incapable of recovering (du Toit & Miller, 2016). Winkfield believed her daughter was still alive because McMath was breathing and her heart was still beating (du Toit & Miller, 2016). McMath’s family disagreed with the doctors’ report and filed a lawsuit to prevent life support from being discontinued (Paola, 2014).

This controversial case ruled that a woman’s ability to be able to chose to get an abortion is considered a protected liberty. It also concluded that this

This was a landmark case as it set a precedent for the rights of public health officials. As stated in an article in the American Journal of Public Health, although this ruling was an important victory for officials, it was not enforced very often in the mid 1900s (Colgrove & Bayer, 2005,

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): For one to file an equal protection claim, one has to prove that the “government intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff by classifying him or her for different treatment under the law than one similarly situated.” For the equal protection clause to be violated, a government has to group individuals in such a way that denies them certain rights or provides different treatment on the basis of traits they have no control over.

The second law case, 468 U.S. 883, was documented in the Supreme Court of United States on July 5th, 1984. The case lectured about Amber Tatro, an 8-year-old girl from Texas who was diagnosed with Spina Bifida, and discussed whether the school should provide catheterization service to her during class hours. This was the first case for the Court to define the distinction between “School Health Services” and “Medical Services”.

April 17, 2013, the case of Salinas V. Texas was presented to the United States Supreme Court to be argued and decided. The case disputed a person's Fifth Amendment’s privileges to self-testify and remain silent. After murdering two brothers after an apparent party in 1992, Salinas was deemed the main suspect and was taken into custody for further questioning. There was one catch though, Salinas was never read his Fifth Amendment rights before questioning, only before he was tried.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

Terri Schiavo was 26 years old when she collapsed in her home and suffered acute hypoxia for several minutes. Slightly shy of a year after her injury, it was clinically determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state (Perry, Churchill, & Kirshner, 2005). There were no legal documents, such as an advance directive or living will, specifying the wishes for care under such circumstances. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, was designated as her legal guardian. The Schiavo case caught the public’s attention when her husband elected to remove her feeding tube in the mid 1900’s. He understood that there has never been a case of recovery after a year of being in a persistent vegetative state. One of the moral issues surrounding the case centered on the appropriateness of removing the life-sustaining feeding tube or maintaining it. Throughout the case, there has

Based on the scenario, the motion to suppress the tools and diagram should not be granted. Based on the fact that an officer observed a man standing in an alley behind a place of business at 11:50 P.M. for more than 5 minutes, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the man was in the progress of committing a crime. Based on the fact that the officer had established reasonable suspicion, he was legally justified to stop and briefly detain the man (Cornell Law, 2017). The fact that the officer grabbed the subject, swung him around, and pushed him against the wall of the store is irrelevant because the subject is not accusing the officer of excessive force. Terry v. Ohio states that when a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

There have been many court cases, even some taken as far as the United States Supreme Court, which involved issues such as preserving/prolonging life and DNR. Roberts presents the case Cruzan versus Director of Missouri Health Department.