Regents Vs California Case Study

An essential job duty for any healthcare professional is to be able to service clients. The Code of Ethics (1999) outlines that service means to use the knowledge that a social worker has acquired through training and education to assist clients with issues that are inhibiting them from living their life completely and without suffering. By this definition, a social worker’s job is to assist a client with real-life issues, such as depression and anxiety, which are faced by the majority of the elderly population (Richardson & Barusch, 2006). For a social worker, assisting clients who face mental illness means

According to the AMHCA Code of Ethics, 2010, Section III.9, Commitment to Students, Supervisees and Employee Relationships, "the primary obligation of supervisors is to monitor services provided by supervisees to ensure client welfare." (p. 16) According to the AMHCA Code of Ethics, 2010, Section I.A.1.a, “the primary responsibility of mental health counselors is to respect client dignity and promote client welfare.” (p.2) Both codes of ethics have parallel stances when it comes to acting ethically in the benefit of the client’s interest. Supervisory roles are crucial in the development of counselors and ensuring the welfare of clients.

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the

The court held the psychologist responsible for the murder of his girlfriend and for not informing of the intent to harm. I believe Justice Tobriner said it best, “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”

There are several ethical dilemmas that the mental health professionals that are working as a team will face including “ensuring that the client has given informed consent, maintaining client confidentiality, and involving professionals, paraprofessionals, and family in appropriate coordinated processes that benefit the client” (Paproski & Haverkamp, 2000, p.96).

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s opinion in a 2009 Supreme Court case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, effectively answers the question. In this case, a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched at school by the authorities on suspicion of hiding some ibuprofen pills that may be bought over-the-counter. When her fellow justices expressed that they are not troubled by the search, Ginsburg says, “They have never been a 13-year-old girl. It’s a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn’t think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood.” Her words reveal that women judges bring a new perspective and understanding of the effects of the laws on women and young girls.

Scott Starson, a brilliant physicist has been in and out of mental institutions due to his bipolar disorder. He was lastly admitted again after he made death threats to his roommates and was found not criminally responsible for that offense. His physicians suggested different sorts of treatment for his illness. Scott Starson refused to give consent to the treatment for reason that he had a scientific research to finish and he didn’t want the medications to slow him down. His physicians not finding him competent enough to critically make that kind of decision, brought the case

In the United States, one in five people suffer from mental illness. These disorders can be as small as bipolar disorder, depression, or as serious as schizophrenia. It is vital to have the mentally ill individual best interest when they enter the criminal justice system. The term” prosecutorial discretion” involves to the elements to subsume under U.S. legal system, the prosecuting attorneys have virtually supreme authority to decide whether to or not to produce criminal charges, what to prosecute for, in lawsuits where the evidence intend to vindicate the charges. This power supply the crucial foundation to the general exercise of plea bargaining, and assurance that prosecutors are by all the ultimate dominant of the government officials.

in this chapter, we examine the basic legal framework of school law in Texas. We begin by discussing the sources of school law and then describe the roles of the state and federal governments in the establishment and operation of the Texas school system. We examine the functioning of the State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, local school districts, private schools, and charter schools. And we discuss the responsibilities of school administrators and the functioning of site-based management. Later sections look at important federal laws affecting the operation of Texas schools and review the long-running controversy over the fi nancing of Texas schools.

Finally in 1990, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court held that “human cell lines are patentable because long-term adaptation and growth of human tissue and cells in a culture is difficult – often considered an art…. It is this inventive effort that patent law rewards, not the discovery of naturally occurring raw materials.” The cells, taken from Mr. Moore and later used for research had to be “manipulated by man” so they could be useful research tools. The California Supreme Court’s holding, rejected Moore’s allegations that he owned the cell line and the products derived from it were inconsistent with the patent, which constitutes an authoritative determination that the cell line is the product

The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“the Act”) has been moderately principled and extremely effective in its reforms to duty of care in negligence. In light of the facts, the main relevant area of reform in the Act has been to liability for psychiatric injury. These reforms have largely been principled in following the recommendations of the Ipp Report and common law, but have made deviations in order to better achieve the goal of reducing liability for psychiatric injury. These have been very effective changes in achieving this goal. However, the principles the Act is based on, contradict legal and normative principles, creating injustice by disentitling people and enhancing the distinctions between physical and mental injury.

family are directly impacted. Dealing with a mentally ill patient can be very stressful, especially

When you have mental health issues, certain types of individuals may be damaging to your well being.

His father did tell the therapist, Goldstein about the idea of his son hurting other and the therapist urge that it is better to have his son hospitalized (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). However, after some time, the client took out his action and actually killed himself and the person, Ewing who is his former girlfriend’s current boyfriend (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Goldstein was then sued by Ewing’s father for not being able to warn their child from the risk (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Even when therapist did not get to meet his client and was not informed about the intention of the client to harm others, he was told by the client’s father about his client’s intention (Koocher and Spiegel, 2013). Hence, the court further states that the therapist have the duty to warn the client and also the third parties in order to protect them from any foreseeable danger after communicating with the immediate family member or friends (Koocher and Spiegel,