Bioethics and Law Flashcards

Baby K Case

A hospital violates the Rehabilitation Act and ADA if it denies life-saving services to a disabled infant without parental consent, regardless of the infant's health prospects. (EMTALA + disability discrimination)

Hurley v. Eddingfield

A physician does NOT have a legal duty to provide medical assistance whenever and to whomever he is asked. (No general duty to treat — default rule)

Wilmington General Hospital v. Manlove

A private hospital has a duty to treat a patient seeking medical care for an unmistakable emergency. (Common-law precursor to EMTALA)

Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital

The U.S. Constitution does NOT provide a right to government-provided emergency medical services. (No constitutional positive right to healthcare)

Burditt v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Under EMTALA, a hospital must screen and treat any person seeking care who has an emergency medical condition or is in active labor. (Failure to stabilize before transfer = EMTALA violation)

Walker v. Pierce

Absent a statute prohibiting a particular type of discrimination, a doctor is typically allowed to discriminate on that basis when making care decisions. (Controversial: upheld coerced sterilization of Black Medicaid patients)

United States v. University Hospital

The Rehabilitation Act's ban on disability discrimination does NOT apply to medical decisions for infants with birth defects.

Glanz v. Vernick

The Rehabilitation Act's ban on disability discrimination DOES apply to medical-treatment decisions.

Alexander v. Choate

The Rehabilitation Act's antidiscrimination provision requires giving disabled individuals meaningful access to a covered program's benefits.

In the Matter of Miguel M. v. Barron

An entity seeking a person's medical records for a mental-health commitment proceeding must comply with HIPAA's Privacy Rule.

Bradshaw v. Daniel

A physician has an affirmative duty to warn family members or others foreseeably at risk of exposure to a disease contracted by an individual the physician is treating. (Duty to warn extends to non-contagious diseases)

Moore v. Regents of UC

(1) A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all material personal interests that may influence professional judgment before securing informed consent. (2) Once cells leave a patient's body, they are no longer that patient's property.

Canterbury v. Spence

Prior to a medical procedure, a physician must disclose all risks that a REASONABLE PATIENT would find significant in making an informed decision. (Reasonable patient standard — majority rule)

Culbertson v. Mernitz

An expert medical opinion is necessary to determine whether a doctor met the standard of care for obtaining informed consent. (Prudent physician standard — minority rule)

Rizzo v. Schiller

Evidence that a patient signed a general-consent form does NOT prove that a provider obtained the patient's informed consent.

Howard v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ

For an informed-consent claim based on misrepresentations about a doctor's qualifications, a patient must show the misinformation concealed a substantial risk increase that would have caused a reasonably prudent patient to decline the procedure.

Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute

Non-therapeutic research studies involving human subjects require disclosure of all material information, including foreseeable risks of harm. (Lead paint study on Black children — special duty to vulnerable subjects)

Strunk v. Strunk

The state may use an incompetent person as an organ donor if the procedure is in the person's best interest. (Substituted judgment — donation served donor's emotional interest in saving brother)

In re Pescinski

A court may NOT authorize the removal of an incompetent person's organ for transplant into another person. (Stricter, more protective approach than Strunk)

In re T.A.C.P.

An anencephalic newborn does NOT meet the state's statutory criteria for "death" and thus may not be declared dead for purposes of organ transplantation. (Strict enforcement of Dead Donor Rule + UDDA)

State v. Powell

A statute permitting a medical examiner to remove corneal tissue of a decedent for transplant without notifying next of kin is constitutional. (Florida — upheld presumed consent)

Brotherton v. Cleveland

A person's family has a legal entitlement to the person's dead body and all its parts. (Ohio/6th Cir. — opposite of Powell; struck down presumed consent on due process grounds)

McFall v. Shimp

A person may NOT be forced to give up part of their body to save someone else's life. (Bodily autonomy in its purest form)

Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute

An individual has no cognizable property interest in body tissue and genetic material donated for research. (Extends Moore — no royalties for tissue donors)

Buck v. Bell

The right to reproduce is NOT a fundamental liberty. (Upheld forced sterilization — eugenics era; never formally overruled)

Skinner v. Oklahoma

A state law requiring forced sterilization of criminals convicted of crimes of moral turpitude unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental rights of marriage and procreation and violates Equal Protection.

Griswold v. Connecticut

An implied right of privacy exists within the Bill of Rights that prohibits a state from preventing married couples from using contraception. (Penumbras and emanations — foundation of privacy doctrine)

Roe v. Wade

The constitutional right to privacy protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. (14th Amendment substantive due process; trimester framework with viability)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

A state abortion regulation places an UNDUE BURDEN on a woman's right to an abortion and is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking abortion before viability.

Gonzales v. Carhart

Congress may ban a specific type of partial-birth abortion provided its restrictions are narrow and clear and the ban does not constitute an undue burden.

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt

A law with the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking abortion imposes an undue burden and is unconstitutional.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

The U.S. Constitution does NOT confer a right to abortion. The Supreme Court may overrule a wrongly decided constitutional decision. (Applied Glucksberg "history and tradition" test; overruled Roe and Casey)

In re Quinlan

The constitutional right of privacy includes the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, and a guardian may exercise this right on behalf of an incompetent patient in a persistent vegetative state. (First major right-to-die case)

Saikewicz (Superintendent of Belchertown State School v.)

Utilizing a "substituted judgment" approach attempts to ascertain an incompetent patient's actual interests and preferences in choosing or rejecting treatment that would prolong life.

Lane v. Candura

A person is competent to refuse medical treatment if the person is capable of appreciating the nature and consequences of the decision.

In re Conroy

Life-sustaining treatment may be withheld from an incompetent patient using a SUBJECTIVE standard (clearly known patient would refuse), LIMITED-OBJECTIVE test, or PURE-OBJECTIVE test (treatment is clearly inhumane). When unclear, err toward providing treatment.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

Competent patients have a 14th Amendment liberty interest in refusing medical treatment, but states may require CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE of an incompetent patient's wishes before withdrawing life support. (Same standard as Addington)

Washington v. Glucksberg

There is NO fundamental right to assisted suicide protected by the Due Process Clause. (Right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" — the test later revived in Dobbs)

Vacco v. Quill

The distinction between WITHDRAWING treatment (allowing nature to take its course) and CAUSING death (active killing) is constitutionally meaningful. No Equal Protection violation in banning physician-assisted suicide.

Causey v. Saint Francis Medical Center

A doctor's decision to withdraw life-saving treatment will be evaluated under the same standard of care as other medical decisions.

J.B. v. M.B. & C.C.

A written agreement executed at IVF will be enforced subject to the right of either party to change his or her mind about disposition of cryopreserved pre-embryos. (Right NOT to procreate generally prevails)

R.R. v. M.H.

A surrogacy agreement is NOT valid if money was paid to the birth mother with the purpose of influencing her decision to give up the child. (Massachusetts version of Baby M)

In re Baby M

Traditional surrogacy contracts (genetic surrogate) are unenforceable as against public policy — equates to baby-selling.

Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

A court may use its general equity powers to determine a child's legal parent in a gestational-carrier arrangement. (Pre-birth orders allowed when surrogate has no genetic tie)

LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine

Frozen embryos count as "children" under Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. (Post-Dobbs spillover into IVF; effectively paused IVF in Alabama)

In re A.C.

A competent pregnant person's medical decisions must be respected, even when fetal interests are at stake. (Bodily autonomy — pairs with McFall)

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

A live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter. ("Anything under the sun made by man" — foundational biotech IP case)

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories

A natural law or natural phenomenon must be sufficiently added upon or transformed to be patentable. (Diagnostic methods based on natural correlations are NOT patentable)

Harvard College v. Canada

Under Canadian patent law, higher life forms are unpatentable subject matter. (Comparative outlier from Chakrabarty — oncomouse case)

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

A naturally occurring DNA segment is NOT patentable merely because it has been isolated. (cDNA IS patentable; collapsed BRCA testing prices)

American Dental Association v. Martin

OSHA may issue rules that protect healthcare employees from significant medical risks at work.

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

A state has authority to enact reasonable laws under its POLICE POWER to protect public health and safety. (Foundational public health case — vaccine mandate upheld)

School Board of Nassau County v. Arline

Courts should defer to public health officials' reasonable medical judgment in determining whether an individual with a contagious disease is otherwise qualified for a job. (Contagion = disability under Rehab Act; need objective evidence, not fear)

State v. Handy

The government's interest in testing a convicted sex offender for STIs outweighs any invasion of the offender's privacy.

Whalen v. Roe

A state law requiring collection and maintenance of personal medical information in a private computerized database does NOT violate constitutional privacy or liberty interests under the 14th Amendment. (With adequate safeguards)

Wong Wai v. Williamson

The government may NOT single out a group for mandatory vaccination and quarantine based solely on race. (Plague-era San Francisco — public health power has limits)

Jew Ho v. Williamson

A racially discriminatory quarantine of Chinatown violates Equal Protection. (Companion to Wong Wai — applied with "an evil eye and an unequal hand")

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

Public health measures must be NEUTRAL toward fundamental rights. COVID restrictions imposing stricter limits on houses of worship than secular businesses violate Free Exercise. (Strict scrutiny applied)

Addington v. Texas

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE is the standard of proof needed to involuntarily commit someone for mental-health treatment. (Same standard as Cruzan)

Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach

Terminally ill people do NOT have a fundamental right to access experimental drugs.

Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation

Misleading consumers about the nutritional value of a restaurant's food products may be illegal under a deceptive-business-practices law. (New public health — obesity litigation)