Case Review

Case Review

Case One

By voting to support abortion, my understanding of human dignity and the right to equal treatment remain clear. The constitution gives every American citizen the right to equal protection. The constitution does not restrict anyone from performing an abortion which involves individual private life. This is well described in the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution. Right to privacy is given to any person regardless of their gender or social levels. The constitution provides for women’s right to privacy that is violated when abortion is restricted. According to Roe, the reasons behind abortion are a separate issue that should not be infringed. However, I do not agree with every form of abortion, but any act that violates the morals of the society will be unsupported. Any woman longing to conduct an abortion should have a genuine reason that compels her to undergo the procedure.

Cases such as rape case, I will fully support the woman to perform an abortion to get read of the unwanted child. It is traumatizing when one gives birth to a child as a result of rape. The child and the mother may not have a good relationship together as the mother will see him or her as an unwanted kid. Going by the majority ruling, “Its father held that the criminalization of abortion by Texas is a discrimination of women’s right to privacy. Justice Harry A. Blackmun also stated that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that any American, regardless of gender, has the right to freedom of privacy. The Court was to consider various private circumstances that could lead individual women to take procedures. The secret matters could be birth control or unwanted pregnancy or even health matters that are held private. Restriction of the procedure, therefore, is termed as a violation of the right to privacy.” Abortion should always aim at protecting the woman’s life and dignity.

Case Two

I concur with the majority ruling to strike back the initial decision by the New York Court to ban assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is one of the American controversial cases that have seen the Supreme Court disagree with the district court. It is agreed that it is God who gives life and not human being and any person has no right to offer assistance to death. However, there are situations that require rational thought. In typical conditions, under normal circumstances, no one will long to die unless there are difficulties such as mental pressure or illness. Having a patient on a life support machine is too expensive that relatives may have difficulty in paying for the chargers for an extended period. However, any decision to stop the machine and allow the patient to die will be a rational thought and agreement between the relatives and the doctor. The relatives will have to sign with the doctor’s guidance. The doctor also has the mandate to advise the relatives appropriately on the condition of the patient.

American constitution under liberty right protected by the Due Process clause plays an instrumental role in the Court’s decision. Also, the fourteenth amendment upheld the American tradition that gives people the right to live a dignified life without suffering. A patient in bed suffering from one of the most chronic diseases such as cancer is not a happy man and, in most cases, they wish they should die. There is no morality of keeping a patient in suffering while there is an option of giving the patient a permanent rest in a dignified way.

Also, patients may decide on their own to refuse taking drugs when they get tired with treatment and wish to die. The doctor has no right to deny such a patient the right to end his or her own life by failing to take drugs. Also, the doctor can help such patient have a mercy death by stopping the medication that only keeps the patient alive as he or she injures pain.

Case Three

I concur with the majority strike back ruling that legalizes assisted suicide. In reference to Vacco v. Quill, the condition of the patients should be considered. For instance, patients with stage 4 cancer may not love to suffer more, so physician-assisted suicide should be considered. Suicide is illegal, and any move to as no human being in his right senses would be allowed by the law to commit suicide. It is argued that life is not a personal property that one can work with the way he or she likes. Life is the property of the government, and it has the right to keep it safe from every harmful element that may strike it. In the event that life is faced with danger, the government is always called into action to bring protection to humanity. The same way no individual is allowed to interfere with that life.

However, the American constitution has been flexible to give people the right to choose between good and bad when it comes to personal life. There are rare situations that patients may call for suicide. Most cases, patients long to have a second chance to live, but this may not be the case when the patient already knows that his or her condition cannot be treated. For instance, a cancer patient at the fourth stage will lose hope in living and may call for the doctor to help end life. The patient at this stage undergoes some severe pain that may compel them to call for suicide to get rest.

On the other hand, a man’s dignity is upheld when he or she is in good health. Any condition that keeps a man unhappy and bedridden lowers the dignity. Even though getting good life is the hope of every patient, those that have no hope of living can make the decision not to seek medical assistance. For instance, a patient may ask the doctor not to take her into a life support machine. I would also support a move by relatives to stop a life-supporting machine when the patient is at his or her unconscious state, and the doctors have given guidance on the same.

Case Four

I concur with the majority ruling that turned down the permission given to individual pharmacies to deny the distribution of narcotics prescribed by physicians for pain relief. In reference to Shelby v. Holder, every person deserves equal protection and should not be denied the opportunity to access some nicotine prescribed by the physician. Physicians are in their right senses when they give prescription on hard drugs to a patient. An objection to the doctors’ directive is unconstitutional and a violation of the right to equal protection. By denying a patient the opportunity to purchase medicine right to equal protection is infringed. The Supreme Court was, therefore, right to strike back the initial ruling by the District court. The pharmacist should be held responsible for the damage caused by the patient’s life.

The constitution should be used at all time to give appropriate guidance to every district court before passing any rule into law. The human right should be the first thing to consider when making rulings that affect humanity. It would be better to uphold humanity than to interfere with it at the expense of some rules. Any rule that does not give dignity to humanity should be given a low profile.

Case Four

Finally, I concur with the majority rule to disallow the federal ban on marijuana. In reference to Gonzales v. Raich’s ruling, marijuana is medicinal, and physicians can prescribe it to patients for health purposes. Apart from marijuana being a medicine, it is a drug same as tobacco. Comparing the two drugs, smoking has a long and lasting effect on human health as it causes cancer of the lung and the mouth. On the other hand, marijuana is having a limited impact on human health as prescribed by physicians.

The constitution has only made it illegal to trade on marijuana and not its consumption as medicine. Trade or use of the drug for leisure purpose is illegal. However, doctors have the right to prescribe marijuana as a medicine to patients who may need its content for their excellent health. Also, saving a life should be the priority of every doctor and not the legality of the substance. Giving reference to utilitarian philosophy point of view, the result of action should be the centre of focus and not the means. Therefore, the main objective is giving life to the patient and not what is used to offer good health. If any drug can improve the life of a patient, then the drug should be given to the patient. We know it is illegal for underage to consume alcohol. However, a physician may prescribe a little alcohol to a child to help in the stomach problem. The goal is to help the patient overcome stomach illness.