SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of terminally ill persons to hasten their inevitable death. In prohibiting physicians from prescribing lethal medications by which such patients might hasten death, Michigan's ban on "assisted suicide" unconstitutionally imposes an "undue burden" on the exercise of that right.
The legal history and current developments in the right to refuse antipsychotic medication are reviewed. In Washington v. Harper the US Supreme Court analyzed the right to refuse antipsychotic medication under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. A narrow issue was clarified but substantial uncertainty remains. As a result, law and policy problems at both state and institutional levels have become evident and may need to be addressed by drug policy decision makers.
This article discusses the 1975 Supreme Court opinion O'Connor v. Donaldson. The article first examines the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the basis for the O'Connor ruling. It then looks carefully at the Court's conclusions, with particular attention to the Court's reasoning and analysis. The article goes on to look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted O'Connor on subsequent occasions and suggests that the Court has often misconstrued its own decision. The article concludes by offering thoughts and commentary on the O'Connor opinion and its progeny.
City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital presented the United States Supreme Court with its first opportunity to consider whether a state or municipality has a constitutional duty to pay for medical treatment received by an individual in police custody. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had held that the city had an eighth amendment duty to pay for an arrestee's treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, observing that eighth amendment rights and duties are not implicated prior to conviction and that fourteenth amendment due process concerns were met once the arrestee received adequate medical care. No obligation to pay arises, the Court held, absent a specific state law provision requiring such payment. Because arrestees are subject to physical restraints similar to those imposed on convicted prisoners, this Case Comment argues that courts undertaking to determine the scope of a state's duty to provide treatment to arrestees should apply a due process standard which draws upon eighth amendment analysis. The Comment concludes that under such an eighth amendment equivalence approach, no duty to pay arises because the state's failure to pay the health care provider does not reflect "deliberate indifference" towards the recipient of the treatment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Exploitation of children in the labor force at the beginning of this century gave rise to a national campaign leading to congressional passage of the Keating-Owen Act in 1916. The act prohibited from interstate commerce goods produced in factories or mines that employed children who either were under fourteen years of age or who were under sixteen years of age and worked more than eight hours a day. Despite its popular support, the Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918). The Court's decision involved several major issues: interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, freedom of contract, police power of the states, and the interstate commerce clause. Review of previous Court decisions suggests that the justices were on less than solid legal ground in reaching their decision. Examination of the historical context of the decision, however, suggests other factors that may have played a more important role than judicial precedents. The debate prompted by Hammer v. Dagenhart has much relevance to such current issues as young agricultural workers, sex discrimination in industry, and the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis states and individual citizens.
In December 1994, the Michigan Supreme Court decided a group of cases comprising constitutional challenges to a Michigan statute against assisted suicide and prosecutions of Dr. Jack Kevorkian for his role in two incidents of suicide. The court rejected arguments that the statute infringed a right of "personal autonomy" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution; it noted that, although US Supreme Court opinions indicate that decisions to withdraw or reject life-sustaining treatment are constitutionally protected, a legal difference exists between permitting death to occur by natural means and taking affirmative steps to end life. The Michigan court also decided that Kevorkian could not be charged with murder for supplying only the means by which suicide occurred, but he could be charged with a common law crime of assisting in suicide although the statute outlawing such actions became effective only after the suicides occurred. Because suicide was a crime under the prerevolutionary English Common Law, which forms the foundation of Michigan law, assisting in suicide is also a residual crime under the "savings clause" of the Michigan statutes, which incorporates common law crimes into the law of that state when no superseding statute exists.
Because child endangerment laws and their judicial interpretation are different in each state, healthcare providers should familiarize themselves with the law in their particular jurisdiction. In situations in which parents refuse on religious grounds to consent to medical treatment for their children, health care providers should consult local counsel as to the legal options available.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.