Boston State Hospital Case Study

An inmate’s most important right is to have access to the courts and without that right they “have neither a forum in which to question the conditions and constitutionality of their confinement, nor an arena in which to seek vindication of other alleged rights violations” (Hinckley, 1987, p. 19). So, the foundation of other prisoners’ rights are based this right of access (Hinckley, 1987). Bounds v Smith is a very good example of where inmate fought to ensure this assess. It all began in North Carolina where inmates filed three actions alleging their 14th Amendment right were violated because of denial of access of legal help and research (Bounds v. Smith, 1977).

The petitioner’s original bond was revoked after evidence that he was intimidating the witness and after the petitioner screamed and shouted racial slurs at the magistrate judge as well as spit on his face. This behavior furthered supported that Charles Sell was suffering from a delusional disorder. The district court concluded that the decision to involuntarily medicate Charles Sell to restore his health and competence is constitutional. The courts also concluded that the drugs administered must not have any negative effects. They also stated that drugs used were medically appropriate for Charles Sell and it gave him the right to due process and protected his fifth and sixth amendment right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court ordered that such “deliberate indifference” to an inmate 's “serious medical needs” was a violation of that inmate 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This case guaranteed three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to professional medical judgment.

Background statement: Heritage Valley Medical Center has had a wonderful reputation for providing excellent health care services to their community. Initially, their community was 80% Caucasian, 40% African American, and 5% Hispanic. However, in the last 5 years, the population has changed to more minorities and the whites have moved out to the suburbs. This caused the Center’s occupancy rate to go down 40% because many of their traditional, more affluent, private-pay patients had left the neighborhood. To bring in revenue, they campaigned to bring in more Medicaid patients.

Their argument was that the use of midazolam as the initial drug violated the 8th amendment 's constraints from cruel and unjust punishment.. They also requested preliminary injunction to prohibit

Even the respondent agreed with the Court of Appeals when they said that it doesn’t matter whether the patient is an inpatient or outpatient or whether the patient is occupying a bed, the hospital is still using the drugs for their own use (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). When an inpatient or outpatient has a take-home prescription, the Supreme Court ruled that the hospital is using the drugs for its own use. This is because the take-home prescription is only used for a limited and appropriate amount of time, and that continuation of care is not unreasonable (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists,

In that case, the Supreme Court held that prison staff (whether doctors or officers or any others) violated the Eighth Amendment if they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners.

The Right to Refuse Psychiatric Treatment Title and Citation: Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), Type of Action: Due Process Clause allowing the state to force antipsychotic medication to a serious mentally ill inmate. Facts of the Case: The respondent Walter Harper has been an inmate in the State of Washington Penal System since 1976. While not on antipsychotic medication, he has a tendency to become violent. On two occasions, he was transferred to the Special Offender Center (SOC). The SOC is and institution for convicted offenders who display severe psychiatric behaviors.

A year later, the judge in the Lee v. Oregon State dismissed the case. The dismissing of the case allowed physician-assisted to continue in Oregon (Devlin, 1996). Years

When individuals become unwell some know they need help or assistance, but in some cases people refuse help or agree to treatment. This act sets out how and when someone gets treated, when someone can be admitted hospital against their will, or treated in hospital. Also lets individuals know their rights and that there is safeguards in place to protect their rights, this act has a set of principles which are taking into account when making decisions. These principles ensures that the person is not discriminated against, equality is promoted and respect and diversity. Within this act there is a compulsory treatment order which allows a person to be treated for their mental illness, however there is a set number of conditions to comply with and these can depend if the individual is in the hospital or out in the community.

Patient signed the intent to discharge without any hesitation. This writer escorted the patient to the lobby area and advised the patient that this writer will talk to the clinic 's TEAM to remove the director hold so that she can dose. Upon returning to the lobby area, the patient was seen at the dosing window, dosed, and walk outside of the clinic. This writer approached the patient and informed the patient, the Program Director wants to meet with her to address the appeal process, even though the patient decline the hearing, but because the patient has come a long way to her recovery process.

In this paper we will look at several cases in which the 8th Amendment has been used in my opinion unethically to justify everything from gender reassignment surgery to claiming that one was mentally insane in order to get out of facing the death penalty. Excessive Bail The 8th Amendment was written to protect against excessive bail, excessive fines, and the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on someone accused of a crime (n.a., 2015). Bail varies from state to state; In the case below we see how a person accused of domestic assault is given what he believe is unfair bail and the court opinion of his claim.

The Patient Self Determination Act is a federal act in the United States, that was passed in 1990. It has benefited American society and public policy in that it legalizes an adult’s right to refuse treatment, from beginning or to discontinue treatment that the adult has already started. This refusal may occur when the adult has decisional capacity, or, if decisional capacity is lot, by the decision maker appointed by the adult. In addition, the PSDA made and makes advance directives more available, and increases awareness of their existence. Decision makers may be appointed in one form of the advance directives, known as a power of attorney for health

Clinicians will not withhold services to clients (NASW, 2008). Limitations of the

Based on this case the cost driver is to properly distribute the direct cost among the different divisions. Dr. Julian would like to control her departments costs by having them distributed fairly among the divisions without affecting the hospital’s reimbursement/revenue. Carroll University Hospital is currently using the standard costing unit, which is based on the cost of bed/day for inpatients. Currently the present cost accounting system that is being used at CUH takes the total direct cost of the departments, then allocates the indirect costs and distributes it among the departments evenly regardless of the actual resources being used in those departments, and without considering that there may be some patients in these divisions that may require more resources than others, this method does not seem to recognize the different activities,