Cruzan v. MO Department of Health
Who was involved: Nancy Beth Cruzan and the Missouri Department of Health
Background: Nancy Cruzan was in a car accident and then rushed to the hospital and was in need of a gastronomy tube to help eat and drink in order to stay alive. The decision came up to eliminate the life support system. However, state hospital officials wouldn’t carry out the act unless approved first by the court. In this case Cruzan was not in a state to make the decision so her parents had to make it for her.
Constitutional issue: The issue at hand was who was in charge of making the decision to take her of life support. Was it up to the doctor, the parents, or the court? She was not in any state to make a drastic decision and she did not right something saying that if she was ever in a state of distress to take her off life support. Because of due process under the law, the 14th amendment states people do have the right to refuse treatment if and only if they are in the right state of mind and they can decide for themselves.
The argument: The Cruzan family lawyer argued before the Supreme Court that Nancy had the right to be taken off the feeding tube whenever she wanted because a person has the right to live or die. And that they should be spending the money on helping more important situations than keeping Nancy alive. However the court fights back saying that no one is permitted to make the decision for the patient. Also the court stated that if any one took her off the gastronomy tube then that would be murder under Missouri law.
The Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Missouri Supreme Court. The court permitted the Cruzan family from removing the tube because there was no clear evidence that she wanted to be taken off the life support.
Background: Nancy Cruzan was in a car accident and then rushed to the hospital and was in need of a gastronomy tube to help eat and drink in order to stay alive. The decision came up to eliminate the life support system. However, state hospital officials wouldn’t carry out the act unless approved first by the court. In this case Cruzan was not in a state to make the decision so her parents had to make it for her.
Constitutional issue: The issue at hand was who was in charge of making the decision to take her of life support. Was it up to the doctor, the parents, or the court? She was not in any state to make a drastic decision and she did not right something saying that if she was ever in a state of distress to take her off life support. Because of due process under the law, the 14th amendment states people do have the right to refuse treatment if and only if they are in the right state of mind and they can decide for themselves.
The argument: The Cruzan family lawyer argued before the Supreme Court that Nancy had the right to be taken off the feeding tube whenever she wanted because a person has the right to live or die. And that they should be spending the money on helping more important situations than keeping Nancy alive. However the court fights back saying that no one is permitted to make the decision for the patient. Also the court stated that if any one took her off the gastronomy tube then that would be murder under Missouri law.
The Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Missouri Supreme Court. The court permitted the Cruzan family from removing the tube because there was no clear evidence that she wanted to be taken off the life support.
Vernonia v. Acton
Who was involved: The court case consists of Vernonia School District and the Acton family.
Background: There was an investigation at Vernonia High School that student athletes were participating in the illegal activities of drug use. Teachers were worried that the drug use was somehow linked to the sports related injuries at the school. After hearing this statement The Vernonia school district developed a student athlete drug policy which gave random urine tests to the athletes of Vernonia High school. The conflict started when James Acton a student at Vernonia high school refused to take a drug test and was denied participation in the school’s football program.
Constitutional Issue: The question brought up was if it is constitutional to perform a random drug test on athletes at the school and does that act violate the fourth amendment.
The argument: The argument of the Acton family was that the school had no right to drug test their son because that violated the 4th amendment. However the school stated that as long as the student athlete was attending the school and playing a sport he could be subjected to random drug tests at any point and time. Their reasoning behind this was that the safety of the students against the fight against drug abuse was weighed greater than the student’s 4th amendment rights.
The decision: The final vote was a 6 to 4 vote favoring the Vernonia School district. The court decided that the safety of the students during the school year is greater than the right to a student athlete’s privacy.
Background: There was an investigation at Vernonia High School that student athletes were participating in the illegal activities of drug use. Teachers were worried that the drug use was somehow linked to the sports related injuries at the school. After hearing this statement The Vernonia school district developed a student athlete drug policy which gave random urine tests to the athletes of Vernonia High school. The conflict started when James Acton a student at Vernonia high school refused to take a drug test and was denied participation in the school’s football program.
Constitutional Issue: The question brought up was if it is constitutional to perform a random drug test on athletes at the school and does that act violate the fourth amendment.
The argument: The argument of the Acton family was that the school had no right to drug test their son because that violated the 4th amendment. However the school stated that as long as the student athlete was attending the school and playing a sport he could be subjected to random drug tests at any point and time. Their reasoning behind this was that the safety of the students against the fight against drug abuse was weighed greater than the student’s 4th amendment rights.
The decision: The final vote was a 6 to 4 vote favoring the Vernonia School district. The court decided that the safety of the students during the school year is greater than the right to a student athlete’s privacy.
Planned Parenthood V Casey
Who was involved: Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania V Ro0bert Casey who was the governor of Pennsylvania.
Background: A law imposed by Pennsylvanian government addressed laws against women wanting abortions. It made the task of getting an abortion hard to do to try and keep the abortion rates down. Planned Parenthood is obviously pro abortion so they argued the law at the Supreme Court.
Constitutional issue: It is said to be that a law of such extent is invalid if that law puts obstacles in the way of a woman who is seeking an abortion. This is true only if the fetus isn’t capable of normal growth and development.
The argument: Does putting the restrictions on a woman violate her rights under due process of the law.A woman must obtain consent from the husband if she is married to the man. Also if the girl is under the age of 18 she has to get parental consent before she carries out with the abortion.
The Decision: The judge said that the 24 hour waiting period is unconstitutional. Also that it is not allowed to pressure the lady to make a certain decision. The doctor is not allowed to supply the female with information on reasons why she shouldn’t get an abortion. In the end the court said that the women do have a right to have an abortion. Also they took away some of the restrictions that made it hard for a lady to have an abortion.
Background: A law imposed by Pennsylvanian government addressed laws against women wanting abortions. It made the task of getting an abortion hard to do to try and keep the abortion rates down. Planned Parenthood is obviously pro abortion so they argued the law at the Supreme Court.
Constitutional issue: It is said to be that a law of such extent is invalid if that law puts obstacles in the way of a woman who is seeking an abortion. This is true only if the fetus isn’t capable of normal growth and development.
The argument: Does putting the restrictions on a woman violate her rights under due process of the law.A woman must obtain consent from the husband if she is married to the man. Also if the girl is under the age of 18 she has to get parental consent before she carries out with the abortion.
The Decision: The judge said that the 24 hour waiting period is unconstitutional. Also that it is not allowed to pressure the lady to make a certain decision. The doctor is not allowed to supply the female with information on reasons why she shouldn’t get an abortion. In the end the court said that the women do have a right to have an abortion. Also they took away some of the restrictions that made it hard for a lady to have an abortion.