case analysis and summary: Malette and Shulman
The case under analysis and summary is that of Malette and Shulman. In this essay, more focus will be on providing a summary of the Malette verses Shulman case. The next topic will involve a case analysis of the cases where the main elements of the legal liberalism theory will be used. Additionally, there will an evaluation of decisions on the cases reflected the constitutional liberalism. The essay will also identify the main elements which are involved in natural law theory. Again there is an evaluation of how the decision on the present case reflects on certain elements of natural law. There will be the identification of which theoretical approach, whether legal liberalism or the natural law theory which offers the best approach to understand the decision in the case of Malette vs. Shulman justifying the best approach. Natural law theory enables one to understand the decision made by the court.
Summary of the Malette vs. Shulman case
Malette vs. Shulman(1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA) is an appeal case that is between Shulman, who is an appellant and Malette who is respondent where the appellant appealed court decision against him which favored Mrs. Malette. Mrs. George had received serious injuries through a car accident where she got rushed to a district hospital in Kirkland. Being a strong religious lady of Jehovah’s Witnesses, she was not supposed to act against the values of her religion. For instance, she was never supposed to accept any blood transfusion under any medical condition. Having been taken to the hospital, the defendant, who is Dr. Shulman, made a conclusion that Mrs. George needed to get a blood transfusion for help in saving her life. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Even though Mrs. Malette had a card which indicated that she should never receive any blood transfusion under any condition, but the doctors, however, admitted the treatment to her. As a result of this action, Malette sought legal redress, which instead the action that the doctor, Dr. Shulman took was characterized by negligence, assault as well as battery and religious discrimination. In accordance with the trial court, Jehovah’s witness validity was apparent that it limited the doctor’s rights to treating Mrs. Malette. So Dr. Shulman did not have any right to going against the restrictions indicated in the card regarding the issue of blood transfusion. In the end, according to the supreme court of Ontario, it confirmed its judgment, which stated that Malette had earlier communicated and informed the doctor that she was not supposed to get any blood transfusion, as indicated in the card from her religious beliefs. Hence, Robins J.A jotted the decision made by the court, where it dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.
Analysis
Legal liberalism
Legal liberalism is that it confines the politics to the straight jacket of law. Another element is that legal liberalism states that politics should be constrained through legal, constitutional boundaries. Legal liberalism, where it is termed as legal constitutionalism then it states that the government has control over the government ministers where it offers better checks on executive power. It does not advocate that the courts and the laws have the power of checking executive power.
In Malette vs. Shulman (1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA) case, it involves reporting to the court covering the issue of blood transfusion against the will of the patient. How this case is addressed in the court shows how there is a conflicting interest between the court laws, which are limited by the rule of her Jehovah witness faith.
Natural law theory
Natural law contains various elements, which include that natural law is in accord with man’s nature. In this case, the subnational and intimate creatures are supposed to obey the eternal laws while man has the freedom of moral choice. Natural law theory is a law theory which recognizes law and morality as being deeply connected. This means that morality is connected to what is considered good or bad and what is said to be good and evil. Another element is that natural law theory plays the role of offering justice, where it states that any law that does not provide justice, then it is considered as an unjust law. So one can conclude that any good act is moral, and moral law can be deemed to be good. Additionally, natural law theory has the element where their human nature guides human beings for figuring out what the laws are supposed to be and how to act in conformity with the law.
In the Malette v Shulman(1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA) case, and how it is handled and decisions made in court it is clear that it follows what is thought to be morally right by the Jehovah witness Christian. For Mrs. George Malette, it is against their religion for one to get blood transmission under any condition. This is what is morally right for people of her faith. So when Dr Shulman, who is the doctor who, despite being informed by the patient that he is not supposed to carry blood transmission to her, is going against the moral laws of her faith. Hence, the decision which is made in court reflects on different aspects of natural law theory.
Between the two theoretical approaches, legal liberalism, and natural law theory, I understand that the decisions made on the case of Malette v Shulman (1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA) are well understood through natural law theory. This is because in the first place, according to Jehovah witness religion, they consider it wrong for one to get a blood transmission regardless of their situation. So, when Dr. Shulman decides to offer blood transmission to Mrs. Malette even after being told it is wrong, then it is against the natural law theory. Natural law theory states that laws are morally justified, which depends on what is considered to be good or bad or what is considered right or wrong. Hence, it is rational to conclude that what Dr. Shulman did was against the moral reason of the Jehovah’s witness faith, which considers it wrong for one to undergo blood transmission.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Malette v Shulman’s (1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA) case involves a situation where Dr. Shulman, the defendant does a blood transmission to Mrs. Malette, the respondent. The legal issue, in this case, is whether Dr. Shulman is liable for the administration of blood transfusion to Mrs. Malette even in that unconscious condition. This is considered as responsible since the patient informed the doctor through her card that according to her religion, it is wrong to receive any blood transfusion regardless of the situation. The end decision is that it requires Dr. Shulman to pay 20,000 to Mallette for the plaintiff in damages. The natural law theory helps in understanding this case since it dedicates on what is morally wrong or right, which must be respected.
Bibliography
Malette v Shulman (1990), 72 OR (2d) 417, 67 DLR (4th) 321 (CA)