Vol8188
revolUTion in the air!
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Messages
- 44,543
- Likes
- 40,724
This is 100% misinformation I'm being taught in a medical ethics course:
"States are not required to accept the substituted judgment of close family members absent substantial proof that their views reflected those of the pt
The problem with this claim...if you read the opinion of the court in Loving v Virginia, it was 100% based in the constitution (14th amendment) and mentions privacy 0 times.
"States are not required to accept the substituted judgment of close family members absent substantial proof that their views reflected those of the pt
- Supreme Court decision based on Roe v. Wade → the right to privacy protects a patient’s right to self determination
- Before Quinlan, any form of euthanasia was murder***
- Roe v Wade → individual’s have a right to privacy (although never mentioned in the constitution); citizens deserve to have private rights
- Loving v Virginia → same idea, but interracial marriage
- Obergefell vs. Hodges → same sex marriage
- Now that Roe has been overturned → many cases are now vulnerable"
The problem with this claim...if you read the opinion of the court in Loving v Virginia, it was 100% based in the constitution (14th amendment) and mentions privacy 0 times.
