Determination of Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Canterbury vs. Spence
Canterbury filed a lawsuit against Spence in the United States. In this lawsuit, Canterbury alleged that Dr. Spence had shown negligence when performing laminectomy on Canterbury and failed to inform him fully about the risks involved in the surgery. In addition, the lawsuit argued that Dr. Spence had negligent as he allowed Canterbury to remain unattended to following his surgery. The doctor failed to offer a nurse at the time of Canterbury's fall. In fact, the lawsuit alleged that the Washington Hospital Center failed to erect a rail on the side of its beds. The lawsuit claimed damages including extensive suffering and pain, loss of earnings and medical expenses.
After years of pretrial motions and discovery, a trial was conducted. After the presentation of evidence by Canterbury's lawyers, the defendant opted for a directed verdict. The trial judge granted the motions, arguing that Canterbury had not produced any medical evidence illustrating that Dr. Spence had been negligent in performing the laminectomy and diagnosing Canterbury's malady. According to the court, there was no proof that the doctor's treatment should have been responsible for Canterbury's disabilities. With the lack of evidence to show the negligence post-surgery care, a lack of medical testimony to demonstrate casualty precluded the submission of this case against Dr. Spence to the jury. The judge never considered whether Dr. Spence was obliged to disclose potential risks of the surgery to his client of his parents before the surgery. This triggered Canterbury to bring a medical malpractice action against the hospital and Dr. Spence in the federal courts. After the hospital and Dr. Spence moved for directed verdicts. The court ruled that Canterbury had failed to generate possible proof...
As a result, Canterbury sought an appeal to the court of appeals.
2. U.S.
Supreme Court Abortion in
Planned Parenthood v Casey and articulated alteration of
abortion regulation Roe v. Wade
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case where the constitutionality pertaining to various Pennsylvania State laws about abortion were challenged. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the
constitutional right to conduct an abortion and changed the standards used to analyze restrictions of this right. This led to the invalidation of one
law while the other was upheld.
In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court challenged the Texas statute, which made it a
crime to conduct an abortion unless the life of a woman was at stake. "Jane Roe," a single woman who wanted to terminate her
pregnancy legally and safely had filed the case. In support of Roe, the court ended up striking down the Texas Law. In the court's ruling, for the first time it recognized that the legal right to
privacy is wide enough to incorporate a woman's choice whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. Since them, Roe is publicly recognized as a case, which legalized abortion nationwide.
During the judgment, almost all states outlawed abortion apart from saving a woman's life and for limited reasons like preserving the health of a woman or instance like fetal anomaly,
incest, or
rape. According to Roe, these laws were unconstitutional, leading to safer abortion services, and easily accessible to women nationwide. The court's decision set a legal precedent, which affected over thirty subsequent cases of the Supreme Court connected to abortion access restrictions.
In Roe vs. Wade case, the Supreme Court established that a woman's right to choose whether t become a
parent or not merits the greatest measure of constitutional protection. In addition, the court found that the right to privacy is not absolute and states have valid interests in protecting potential health and maternal health. According to the Supreme Court of the U.S., interests of states in protecting maternal health will only be compelling in the…
