Which of these cases established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures: Canterbury v. Spence or Obergefell v. Hodges?
96efcf9e6ab5d6c51f9dd587c52ffdb2
Canterbury v. Spence Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
4aa4250f9af30ed8ae61ff9f1d437cf4
Obergefell v. Hodges Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) ( ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5–4 decision.
7e73bfe011cf192649e1ab0dcd5d0905
Hudson v. Craft Hudson v. Craft ( , 1949) is a United States court case defining how the court defines consent as a defense to an intentional harm.
df4af3b1d7accbcedaece88ef6992657
LGBT rights in Mississippi Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Mississippi may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Mississippi. Same-sex marriage is legal in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges".
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
b430fd596ad2f0738366be578d18136e
People v. Marsden People v. Marsden is a 1970 California Supreme Court decision that held it was error for the trial court to deny a defendant's motion to relieve his court-appointed counsel without holding a hearing to allow the defendant to explain his grounds. The trial court had denied the motion based on the trial judge's own observations of the proceedings and belief that the attorney was providing effective representation. Criminal defendants in the United States have the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford to hire an attorney under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright.
f85afa54921d3de8f66ed9bc46f87655
AH v West London Mental Health Trust AH vs West London Mental Health Trust was a landmark case in England, which established a legal precedent in 2011 when Albert Laszlo Haines (AH), a patient in Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital, was able to exercise a right to a fully open and public mental health review tribunal to hear his appeal for release. The case and the legal principles it affirmed have been described as opening up the secret world of tribunals and National Health Service secure units, and as having substantial ramifications for mental health professionals and solicitors, though how frequently patients will be willing or able to exercise the right is not yet clear.
65dac06ca3b0c4589c0d06f296ef6c51
Ridge v Baldwin Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 was a UK labour law case heard by the House of Lords. The judges hearing the case extended the doctrine of natural justice (procedural fairness in judicial hearings) into the realm of administrative decision making. As a result, the case has been described as "the landmark case" that opened up decisions taken by the UK executive to judicial review in English law.
4b79eb61002f697c9916cb68a413f6a7
Same-sex marriage in North Dakota Same-sex marriage in North Dakota became legal following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Obergefell v. Hodges" on June 26, 2015, which invalidated state bans on same-sex marriage. Until then the state had restricted marriage to the union of one man and one woman both by statute and in its Constitution.
1d8b45849453a0b2b5be0a16a1f65b2f
Williams v Commonwealth Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (also known as the "School chaplains case") is a landmark judgment of the High Court The matter related to executive prerogative and spending under .
c7826424d011ea9683f511ad2f72f207
Ferguson v. City of Charleston Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) , is a United States Supreme Court decision that found Medical University of South Carolina's policy regarding involuntary drug testing of pregnant women to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the search in question was unreasonable.
9438e53a7d6ca28a5d49421976e7a271
Hodgson v. Minnesota Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.
0aa81cc28d95b22286057f441eb07804
LGBT rights in the United States Virgin Islands Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. Virgin Islands face legal challenges and discrimination not faced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is no longer criminalized, and neither is same-sex marriage. The Virgin Islands lacks a hate crimes statute and provides LGBT residents no protection against discrimination. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in "Obergefell v. Hodges" on June 26, 2015, which found the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional, same-sex marriage became legal in the islands.
5a9ee17fdc78d4c9c1e88047a0e41917
Washington v. Glucksberg Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
8e2762e6dd6a03fa2798b199485faf4c
LGBT rights in Vermont The establishment of LGBT rights in the US state of Vermont is a recent occurrence, with the majority of progress having taken place in the past century. It was one of 37 US states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, until the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
2cf74a9abe71d9a22e364b3326f0c62c
Shakoor v Situ Shakoor v. Situ (t/a Eternal Health Co) [2000] 4 All ER 181; [2001] 1 W.L.R. 410; (2001) 57 B.M.L.R. 178; Independent, May 25, 2000; is a first instance case in English tort law on the standard of care appropriate for an alternative medicine practitioner. Its controversial ruling elaborates on the "responsible body of medical men" test from "Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee".
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.
548434d9cf8a2072756bc7f80e871bee
Abortion Act 1967 The Abortion Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom legalising abortions by registered practitioners, and regulating the tax-paid provision of such medical practices through the National Health Service (NHS).
8f1f63d8d4fe403bb1e7a449102ee33b
Attorney General v. X Attorney General v X, [1992] IESC 1; [1992] 1 IR 1, (more commonly known as the "X Case") was a landmark Irish Supreme Court case which established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide.
d5523258c5c143c8a432e1cecfaebc3f
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 is an English tort law and medical negligence case involving skilled professional (i.e. doctors and pharmacist) that outlines the rule on the disclosure of risks to satisfy the criteria of an informed consent. The Supreme Court departed and overruled the earlier House of Lord's case in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, in reconsidering the duty of care of a doctor towards a patient on medical treatment.
cd117ce44372fa4b3ce45faa90ed20d7
Physician–patient privilege Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and his or her doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician–patient privilege not to testify in court, either by statute or though case law, limits the privilege to knowledge acquired during the course of providing medical services. In some jurisdictions, conversations between a patient and physician may be privileged in both criminal and civil courts.
76b92d91d637abd20b3a124e7a4ead7f
Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning". After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts. The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans. When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit. However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow. In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter. The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans. Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all. They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit. Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all. Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.