Individuals Rights in HealthCare and Public Health by Ijanee Harmon https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5 Rights related to Freedom of Choice en-us 2023-04-16 18:59:16 UTC 2023-04-19 22:25:11 UTC hello@padlet.com iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559372273

]]> 2023-04-19 01:01:29 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559372273 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559379475 Right of individuals to make informed choices of their own care. 
  • Right to refuse treatment
  • Right to know outside factors (e.g. research factors, financial considerations
  • Right to an interpret
  • Right to advance treatments     
]]> 2023-04-19 01:07:24 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559379475 Canterbury V. Spence iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559380593 Outcome: Doctor's must disclose all risk to patient's prior to a medical procedure. A patient must give their informed consent.   

]]> 2023-04-19 01:08:17 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559380593 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559432546 Two approaches recognized by the Supreme Court
  1. The protected personal interest as "informational privacy," the limiting of others access to and use of an individuals private information.
  2. Individual autonomy and freedom from governmental interference in making basic decisions.
]]> 2023-04-19 01:46:52 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559432546 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559492383 Case was an important precedent for Roe v. Wade

Summary: Estelle Griswold, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was convicted as an accessory for giving a married couple medical information to prevent conception and for prescribing a conceptive to the wife.
The statue of Connecticut deemed it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception.  Griswold argued that the statue violated the 14th amendment.

Outcome: The Supreme Court found the right to privacy to use birth control measures was legitimate and was connected to the rights of privacy as it relates to the 3rd,4th,5th, and 9th amendment. ]]> 2023-04-19 02:31:48 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559492383 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559499803 2023-04-19 02:37:24 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2559499803 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560753844 Summary: In the 1970s a single pregnant women challenged the Texas criminal law, which prohibited procuring or attempting an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, expect for for saving a women's life. Roe argued the constitutional right to privacy articulated in Griswold v. Spence included a women's right to choose to obtain an abortion. Henry Wade, Texas district attorney claimed the law was permissible and the state was protecting women from unsafe medical procedures. The case was taken to the U.S Supreme Court.

Outcome: The court ruled women have a right to privacy to decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy but it is not absolute. State limits were set in place in safeguarding women's health.  The following restrictions are as followed:
  •  For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
  • For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it choses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health
  • For the stage subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appreciate medical judgement, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother(Teitelbaum, 2023).

]]> 2023-04-19 22:01:10 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560753844 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560754534 2023-04-19 22:02:40 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560754534 iharmon2 https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560766174 Griswold v. Connecticut. (2023, April 18). Retrieved from LexisNexis: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-griswold-v-connecticut

LexisNexis. (2023, April 19). Roe V. Wade. Retrieved from LexisNexis: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-roe-v-wade-1664800401

Quimbee. (2021, January 11). Canterbury v. Spence Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. Retrieved from Youtube: https://youtu.be/uri0gJDHsSc

Teitelbaum, S. E. (2023). Chapter 6 Individual Rights in Health Care and Public Health. In Essentials of Health Policy and Law Fifth Edition (p. 122). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Teitelbaum, S. E. (2023). Chapter 6 Individuals Rights in Healthcare and Public Health. In Essentials of Health Policy and Law Fifth Edition (pp. 119-123). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

 

]]> 2023-04-19 22:25:06 UTC https://padlet.com/iharmon2/e6ls5jotig161hy5/wish/2560766174