1 / 13

McFall v. Shimp Curran v. Bosze

McFall v. Shimp Curran v. Bosze. Jennifer Ganesh Law Values and Public Policy STS 2400. McFall v. Shimp. Plaintiff- McFall needs a transplant Defendant- Shimp has high compatibility rating Shimp refuses to go through with procedure McFall files an injunction against Shimp.

aitana
Download Presentation

McFall v. Shimp Curran v. Bosze

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. McFall v. ShimpCurran v. Bosze Jennifer Ganesh Law Values and Public Policy STS 2400

  2. McFall v. Shimp • Plaintiff- McFall needs a transplant • Defendant- Shimp has high compatibility rating • Shimp refuses to go through with procedure • McFall files an injunction against Shimp

  3. Plaintiff’s Case • Plaintiff’s Defense- King Edward I. St. Westminster 2, 13 Ed., I, c 24 • This Court derives its power from this statute because this court is a successor of the English Courts of Chancery

  4. Defendant’s Case Common law • no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save another human being

  5. Judgment • “For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual.....”

  6. Appeals • Appealed and went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court • S.C. agreed with lower court’s decision • This case set precedent for many other cases- Angela Carder Story

  7. Curran v. Bosze • Jean Pierre- 12 year old with rare form of leukemia • 2 younger siblings that might be a match for a bone marrow transplant • Mother of the twins refuse to grant permission for testing

  8. Plaintiff’s Defense • Best Interest Standard- what is the best choice for the minors? • Substituted Judgment- what would the children do if they were not minors?

  9. Defendant’s Defense • Curran believes that the tests and actual donation may harm the twins both physically and emotionally • Risks outweighs the benefits

  10. Judgment • Petition denied • No concrete evidence that the twins would want to go through with the bone marrow transplant

  11. Appeal • Went to Illinois Supreme Court • Decision of Circuit Court was upheld

  12. Questions? Comments?

  13. References • http://imc.gsm.com/demos/dddemo/consult/statelaw/cases_il.htm • http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall.html • http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/June99/0161.html • http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii910326.html • http://www.nocirc.org/articles/prescott3.html

More Related