Colin Newmark Case Summary

The Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center case was then appealed by the plaintiffs. Facts: This is a civil case. The Plaintiff of this case is Timothy W. Gallagher, the parent of Jack O’Bannon Gallagher (deceased). Jack was sent to the emergency room after his high school nurse believed he might have abused a substance in which he was acting strangely and had elevated blood pressure. The decedent was omitted into the hospital and was seen by multiple medical professionals who evaluated both his physical health and mental state.

An unsatisfied John Moore Based on the case “Moore v. Regents of the University of California” By Lani Marais 210013877 5 May 2016   An unsatisfied John Moore (Stanfill, 2012) John Moore is a cancer patient, from Seattle, that was diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia in 1976. After he underwent surgery to remove his spleen, which was damaged by the cancer, he started to wonder if his doctor, Dr David Golde, was withholding information from him. He started to suspect this after a few follow-up visits. Golde was flying him to Los Angeles every month for seven years, when there was no noticeable reason for John to be in Dr Golde’s laboratory.

This private law case describes the reaction of parents awaiting the arrival of their child, only to later find out that the sperm donor, was diagnosed with several mental disorderos. This is a private law case because the 10 families sued the company Xytex for providing inaccurate information from their donor. Aggeles, their donor, claimed to be a doctor, healthy and as smart as Einstein which obviously was not the case. Providing sperm for 36 children, which all could possibly carry the gene of a mental disorder was not something these parents signed up for. Xytex claimed that they aware parents that they do not verify donors background information.

Simran Sandhu Ms.Kllapi CLU3M0-B March 20, 2017 B.(R) v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] Facts: Parents of a child refused to let their child needing blood transfusion have blood transfusion because it went against their religious beliefs. The provincial court then granted Children’s aid society a temporary custody of the child for 72 hours but was later extended to 21 days. The doctors then gave the child a blood transfusion because of suspected glaucoma which contradicted to the families beliefs. The parents then argued that taking away their rights to choose treatment for their child is an infringement of sections 2(a)

• Question 4: How does the case of “John/Joan” (David Reimer) support the view of sex as a category based on nature? How does this case support the view of sex as socially constructed and enforced? Reading about the case of John/Joan it definitely supports the view of sex as a category of nature. When a child is born they are born as a female or male.

● According to RRA’s argument, the new statute does not have an exception to allow abortions in cases of rape or incest after the point of fetus viability. But under Casey, a state may prohibit abortion after viability even if the pregnancy was the result of rape and before viability, a state may not place a “substantial obstacle” (impose an undue burden) on obtaining abortion. It is true that the new statute violates the U.S Constitution, by not allowing abortions after the fetus viability. The U.S Supreme Court held that, even after the fetus viability, the states cannot prohibit abortions, necessary to preserve the health or life of the woman. The chances of winning the argument are low for RRA in this point because the U.S constitution has not provided specific requirements in cases of rape, but it is mainly concerned with the maternal health.

It is not uncommon for a guardian of the child or other person acting in interest of the child to file for wrongful life on behalf of the child if the child has not reached the age of majority. The most common claim for wrongful birth claim is intertwine with failure to correctly diagnose a genetic abnormality in the parents or in a fetus and the claim that but for the error the parents would never have had that child. In North Carolina, wrongful birth was rejected because it was established that they are “unwilling to say that life, even life with sever defects may ever amount to a legal injury” although, many but not all states have permitted wrongful

The problem arose when the parents were dissatisfied with the due process hearing;

With almost half the nation divided among their views, abortion remains one of the most controversial topics in our society. Since Roe v. Wade, our views in society as well as following court cases have been progressing toward the woman’s right to choose. The precedent set by Roe v. Wade made the Supreme Court acknowledge that it cannot rule specifically when life begins and it also affirms that it is the woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th Amendment. In the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause forbids the government from passing laws “which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another”. Many Christian pro-lifers use their religious beliefs to dispute when life begins.

I. I believe in the inviolability of human life II. I am absolutely disagree the elective abortion for personal or social convenience. A. All of us should not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange such abortions. III. The word abortion by definition means the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus.

The case of Cassandra vs Connecticut state is about Cassandra, a teenager from Connecticut, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer. Cassandra refused to get chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma deeming the treatment itself as poisonous. Casandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin gave up on convincing her daughter to get chemotherapy and respected her decision. So, Cassandra and her mother often missed their medical appointments. Cassandra’s doctor reported Casandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin, to Department of Children and Families for neglecting her child for avoiding cancer treatment which would be highly fatal to Cassandra.

In fact, most important points the court failed to recognize are missing of evidence to show whether that the parents can take care of a child, safety of the home,

In both readings of Plato’s “The Apology” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” one major principle that comes out of Thoreau’s text that Socrates would agree with is that in the face of laws by the state one should only abide if it is moral. Additionally, Thoreau believes that justice is superior to the laws enacted by the government, and the individual has the right to judge whether a given law reflects or flouts justice. Thoreau and Socrates believe that humans are moral beings and that virtue is very important. In contrast, however, even though both individuals have a lot of similarities there were some areas where Socrates’ views differed with Thoreau.

That seems to be the best option in any other case, because you should allow the child a right to life. I really do not see this debate ever getting anywhere because there is so much support from both sides of the debate. I don’t think that we will ever come to a conclusion that is able to satisfy both sides of the

As seen in medical cases in England, the decision in whether a child is mature enough to make a decision regarding their lives boils down to what the person who is making the determination, believes is in the best interest of the child. In Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Anor the House of Lords held that the parent’s right to make decisions for their child concede to the child’s autonomy when they reach sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up their own mind regarding the particular