Discussions
Answer each “SECTION” separately with it’s own sources (2) They are all completely different questions so please separate. One source per section
SECTION 1: Would it be permissible to remove the organs of healthy, deceased prisoners to save the lives of five to eight others who need organ transplants?
Take the viewpoint that laws should be altered so that anyone dying in prison is deemed to consent.
Should prisoners in the nation’s jails and prisons have the same rights to consent as others?
Apparently, the current practice is often to use rewards to obtain the consent of prisoners. Does this seem fair?
SECTION 2:
When did the U.S. decide that people with mental illness have rights?
The history of mental illness coincides with the civil rights movement although to this day, the courts have not recognized a right to mental health treatment. Up until the turn of the 19th century, people with mental illness were confined indefinitely. Then, in the 1970s, the extensive use of psychotropic drugs made involuntary hospitalizations less necessary and the states began closing their state mental hospitals. For the first time, people with mental illness who preferred to live in their homes and were not a danger to themselves or others were free to do so. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the doors to deinstitutionalization when it held that mental illness alone could not justify confining people indefinitely in state mental hospitals (O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975)). Up until this time, people could be committed to state mental hospitals, without treatment programs, even if they were not dangerous to themselves or others. Four years later the Court held that the due process rights of the mentally ill require a higher standard than a regular civil proceeding if it might result in indefinite commitments (Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979)). In 1982, the Court held that mentally ill people have a constitutionally protected right to refuse drug therapy (Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982)). The Court explained that involuntary commitment provides no basis to infer someone is incompetent without a further judicial finding.
Today, people with mental illness now have rights, but if they cannot afford treatment, they are often either homeless or imprisoned. The prevailing view is that the nation’s entrenched mental health system does not adequately provide for the mentally ill; a cumbersome process has struck a balance too far toward preserving due process rights with inadequate attention being directed to the need for treatment.
Discussion Points:
Discuss why operation of the nation’s mental health system might be primarily based on principles of economics rather than evidence-based medicine. While it was very expensive to keep mentally ill people institutionalized, by closing most of the mental hospitals, was the expense of institutionalization simply transferred to other social systems like the criminal justice system and homeless programs? How should the U.S. health care system finance effective out-patient care for the mentally ill?
Take the viewpoint that if people commit crimes, they go to jail or prison. This idea of spending money on special and expensive mental health care comes from bleeding heart liberals.
What should the U.S. health care system do about mentally ill people that fail to follow their therapy and take their medication and are involved in crime; should they be locked in jail or prison?
Should involuntarily committed mentally ill patients have a constitutional right to refuse treatment in the absence of a legal determination of incompetence?
SECTION 3:
What human rights do family members have to weigh in on decisions about hospice care?
How should hospice programs balance the liberty interests of persistent vegetative state hospice patients to refuse life saving hydration and nutrition alongside the right to self determination at the end of life with the states interest in preserving life?
