Biomedical subjects
Barry A Bostrom
Publications and source records attributed to Barry A Bostrom.
In the matter of Christine B. Biersach. In the Ohio Court of Appeals.
HOLDING: Before withdrawal of tube feeding may be permitted, a guardian must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the treating and consulting physicians' education, training, and experience; the physician's history and experience with the patient; the fact that the physician personally examined the patient; and the opinions required by statute. Each physician should also testify to his opinion that the other physician in the matter is qualified, by reason of advanced education or training, limited practice, experience, or certification as a specialist, to make the findings and provide the opinions about the patient which are required by the statute. The consulting physician's opinion should be more than a conclusory adoption of the attending physician's opinion. Rather, it should be independently stated and, ideally, should include the reasons upon which it is based.
Pettis v. Smith and Braddock. In the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
HOLDING: Tube feeding may be withheld or withdrawn from a person in a persistent semi-conscious state even though her living will did not explicitly decline tube feeding, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of her intention to decline tube feeding.
Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.
Gonzales v. Raich. In the Supreme Court of the United States.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Preston v. Meriter Hospital in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
When a baby is born in a hospital birthing center, the newborn has come to the "emergency department" for purposes of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Thus, the hospital must provide "an appropriate medical screening examination" to any infant born at the hospital birthing center in order to determine whether the infant has an emergency medical condition.
In the Supreme Court of Kentucky Woods v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Grubbs v. Barbourville Family Health Center.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
66 Federal Credit Union v. Tucker.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In the Michigan Court of Appeals: In the Matter of AMB, a Minor.
HOLDING: In the accelerating rush to judgment that occurred here, a series of legal errors and missteps following a preliminary hearing compounded what was already an excruciatingly difficult and complex situation. The record strongly suggests that no one involved in the protective proceeding had ever communicated directly with baby AMB's parents and only the testifying doctor had ever seen AMB, an infant with life-threatening disabilities. Thus, a duly enacted statutory process designed to protect individual rights, to allow the intelligent exercise of these rights, and to assure balanced and considered decision making became, instead, the opposite. There was such a relentless disregard for basic principles of law that in its opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals attempted to assure that this tragedy is never repeated in that state.
In the Michigan Court of Appeals: People vs. Jack Kevorkian.
HELD: There is no right to euthanasia within the constitutional right of privacy. Recognition of such a right to euthanasia would impermissibly expand the right of privacy and thus place the issue outside the arenas of public debate and legislative action. Such a holding would also involve the judiciary in deciding questions that are simply beyond its capacity. There is no principled basis for the court to legalize euthanasia.
The High Court of the Hague Case No. 79065, October 21, 1986.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Court of the Hague (Penal Chamber), April 2, 1987.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.