The court itself was appalled, because this scenario was a contradiction towards them. Everyone has the right to have proper medical care, being a regular citizen or a prisoner justice has to be given to both. In this case it wasn’t, Tomcik didn’t receive proper care which resulted in the consequences stated. A doctor has to be alert and careful of what they are writing down in their reports, the confusion between wrists and breast, this
This gave a moral framework that prohibited medical treatment to be executed. Regarding, drug administration it is only a doctor’s duty that can administer the effects of drugs, no one else is able to prescribe the drug because he or she does not know about drug’s effect on humans. In this case, giving medicine to the Singleton was contrary to medical goal because the purpose of medicine is treated not to kill a person. If Charles Laverne Singleton stays in prison, he did not harm anyone, and he was not a threat. He suffered from schizophrenic and it was a kind of
Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?
Step 1: Facts of the case This is a case in which the plaintiffs are three long haired young men who were denied the ability to enroll in Tyler Junior College due solely to their hair length violating the schools dress code. One of the plaintiffs is a Vietnam War veteran who had attended the school for a semester the previous year and had caused no difficulties in that time. The school stated that long haired students had been known to cause disruptions in the classroom. It was due to this that the rule regarding hair length was implemented into the schools dress code. Step 2: Question of law presented to the court
On February 14, 2006, a United States district court issued an unprecedented ruling in the execution of murderer Michael Morales. In order to uphold the Constitutions Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment California was ordered to have a physician, specifically an anesthesiologist, personally supervise the execution by lethal injection to determine the prisoner’s state of consciousness (p101). The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) strongly opposed this ruling stating that “Physicians are healers not
The name of the case is US v. Hinckley, 625 F. Supp. 2d 3 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2009 the case was decided in the year 2009, the court that heard this case was the United States District Court, District Court of Colombia. This case is a continuation of the original.
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
The Supreme Court has observed that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment if it inherently involves “torture or a lingering death” or is “inhuman and barbarous.” This was brought into question in the case of Glossip V. Gross when Oklahoma introduced the drug midazolam as a new execution drug. The case also brings into question whether the court is required to supply a form of execution when the government cannot find one itself. In Baze v. Rees the three-drug protocol was observed for lethal injection by at least 30 states, where barbiturate, an anesthesia that causes the person to go unconscious and two other drugs which paralyzed the prisoner eventually causes them to go into cardiac arrest.
The United States of America as they stand today are a result of the evolution of the frameworks our founding fathers set in to place long ago. Among them were the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia and New Jersey plans, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Beginning with the original frame work for the government of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, established in 1781, formed a firm league of friendship among the states, instead of a government for the people (Dye, Gaddie 66). The United States fared well under the Articles of Confederation. With success in gaining independence from Great Britain, gaining France as an ally and establishing a viable peace.
In the Baxter v. Montana case, the Plaintiffs ' statement was that the right to assisted death is based on three of the explicit rights in the Montana Constitution; equal protection, personal dignity, and individual privacy. The right to privacy and equal protection are also in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Mr. Baxter should be able to do as he pleases in the privacy of his own home. The state denying Baxter these natural rights, brings up more issues besides the right to die. More importantly, it was also clear that throughout the case Mr. Baxter was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia and was terminally ill. The District Court of the First Judicial District agreed and held that a competent, terminally ill patient has a right to die with dignity and appealed the case.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that prison staff (whether doctors or officers or any others) violated the Eighth Amendment if they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners.
School officials are not allowed to conduct searches on students without probable cause; and random searches are not permissible according to The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their homes, and personal effects and to prevent them against un-probable search cases. For example, these laws and policies affect school leaders decision-making procedures by stating that school leaders must have probable cause to conduct searches against students for specific incidents and locations including any property to be taken from the students. For example, in the case of New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) addressed the issue of can a search by a school official be called a "search" based on the Fourth Amendment
The Eighth Amendment was created to prohibit cruel punishments that the colonists would receive from the British. The British brought colonists over to an unfair trial and then received punishment that sometimes would be death. The writers of the wanted to make sure that the colonists received the fair trial and fair punishment they deserve. The Eight Amendment was ratified in December 5, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment has not been changed since the ratification in 1791.
A couple of weeks back word spread that one of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices had passed. Antonin Scalia is one of nine Supreme Court justices and his position in the Courts conservative wing. Since Scalia 's passing and for the likely future, the court has to function with eight justices, four appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans. Scalia 's passing means not just the loss of the court 's main conservative voice but also increases the likelihood of a divide on controversial issues.
Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. The constitution granted the american people basic rights and protections the eighth amendment is one of them. The eighth amendment bans all methods of punishment that may be considered cruel and unusual. The constitution is not flexible and demands zero errors. States are breaking this constitutional right by using experimental drugs that have led to botched executions.
