Question

Spousal Consent

Provisions of the Florida Therapeutic Abortion Act, which required a married woman to obtain the husband’s consent before abortion, were found to be unconstitutional. The state’s interest was found not to be sufficiently compelling to limit a woman’s right to abortion. The husband’s interest in the baby was held to be insufficient to force his wife to face the mental and physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth.43 In Doe v. Zimmerman (1975),44 the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, which required that the written consent of the husband of a married woman be secured before performing an abortion. The court found that these provisions impermissibly permitted the husband to withhold his consent either because of his interest in the potential life of the fetus or for capricious reasons. The natural father of an unborn fetus in Doe v. Smith (1988)45 was not entitled to an injunction to prevent the mother from submitting to an abortion. Although the father’s interest in the fetus was legitimate, it did not outweigh the mother’s constitutionally protected right to an abortion, particularly in light of evidence that the mother and father had never married. In the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that spousal consent would be an undue burden on the woman.

Incompetent Persons’ Consent

Abortion was found to be proper by a family court in In re Doe (1987)46 for a profoundly retarded woman. She had become pregnant during her residence in a group home as a result of a sexual attack by an unknown person. The record had supported a finding that if the woman had been able to do so she would have requested the abortion. The court properly chose welfare agencies and the woman’s guardian ad litem (a guardian appointed to prosecute or defend a suit on behalf of a party incapacitated by infancy, mental incompetence, etc.) as the surrogate decision makers.

The Court Was Appalled, Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction.

In 500 words explain the following

1. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Discuss your answer

2. Discuss why the court was appalled

3. What ethical values were lacking by the caregivers?

Answer 1

1. The court held the defendant liable for negligence and breach of duty of care which it owed to the plaintiff who was at a rehabilitation home. I agree to the court's decision as the preliminary negligence on the part of the physician who examined the plaintiff during the initial stage of her illness was the sole cause of her sufferings which augmentted in the course of time. He failed to exercise even the most minimum duty of care and showed extreme negligence in discharging his own duties that left the disease undetected at a time it could have been managed effectively and caused much lesser damage to th plaintiff. Besides the physician, the rehabilitation facility is also equally responsible for overlooking the plaintiff's continual request for her treatment, which cuased the disease to proliferate to an uncurable level.

2. Court was apalled because of the sheer negligence on the part of the people who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and failed miserably to exercise it. It was particularly apalling because of the negligent behaviour of the physician whose breach of duty caused irreparable and life threatening damage to the plaintiff.

3. The caregivers breached the duty of care and showed gross negligence towards their inmate, who was completely upon them for care. Not only her disease remained undetected due to negligence and apathy of staff, it proliferated due to same negligence to such a level that caused irreparable damages. If they had behaved ethically, the patient would have been cured early without much damage to her body.