The trial judge, McLelland J, held that the joint tenancy had not been severed. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, applying the principles set down in Milroy v Lord and followed in later decisions, stating that the trustee had obtained no legal or equitable interest in the land. In dismissing the appeal in the High Court, Mason CJ and McHugh J, in a joint judgment, and Deane J, held that no interest arose in equity because the donor had not done everything that was necessary for her to have done to effect a transfer of legal title. The High Court did not consider the power of the donor to recall the gift to be strictly relevant to the issue of whether she had done everything necessary to effect a transfer of legal title. This is also not particularly relevant either as Percy has not asked for the gift to be returned.
I believe at least letting Henrietta know what they were doing would be the ethical thing to do. Although, Henrietta signed the operation permit it did not give the hospital the right to take tissue from Henrietta for research purposes. How would you
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
IV. Conclusion Because the hospital or the nurse’s actions were not the proximate cause of Mr. Smith’s death, they should file for
For Pharma to survive and become viable it was obvious that some decisions had to be made, but was the sale of the assets in the best interest of the corporation, or was it in the best interest of Adams and Barker? One can only conclude that the directors violated all their duties of financial interests, care and rational belief and were not acting with best information and, thus, cannot be shielded by the business judgment rule. 7. What type of lawsuit, derivative or direct, would be filed by Cornelius
He is not only informally treating and collecting specimen from his daughter, but he is also not documenting any of the treatments that he is doing. This is a major problem and could be subject to intervention by the law. Joe is risking his medical credibility by doing this for his daughter. He is also performing these tests without the direct supervision of the supervising physician, which goes against the code of conduct (2013). If a physician assistant violates laws that vary from state to state, the physician assistant could be subject to license suspension or being
There is nothing that says judges, individuals, or companies can ignore a law once its made because their beliefs don't follow under that law. Some people may believe in human sacrifice but that doesn't make it any less then murder. In The Judge John Kane case it was said that they were merely trying to follow through with their First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Although freedom of religion means they have the freedom to have it within the boundaries of the law. Health insurance is not a part of the religion therefore they must follow the Obama mandate.
Unfortunately the law that we follow is not made to think of how patients feel but how others will feel. In this paper I have discussed bout how I feel about Euthanasia. I have told you that I support it to an extent. I have listed the reasons for euthanasia to be legal and how it should play out. I have also told you that it is not legal for someone in my state to be euthanized.
In his thinking, it did not matter that there was no scientific evidence. The fact that there is no scientific evidence linking serious health problems to DDT contamination also proves that there is so evidence to the contrary. What really sets the Triana lawsuit apart from the others, was a plan proposed by Foster. He wanted to protect the people of Triana from any negative affects of DDT in the present and in the future, so he proposed that Olin establish a healthcare program for all residents that were exposed to DDT. In addition, the lawsuit would also require Olin to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss of income.
Instead of trying to understand why Dax was acting the way he was, the doctors instead insisted that he was acting like a child and was unable to make the decision for himself. Even Dr. Larson went against Dax’s psychiatrist Dr. White in his words stating that Dax was sane in his judgments. They lacked any morality and the main focus of this relationship was not to adhere to Dax’s needs. These among other reasons that I have previously stated are factors as to why the treatment given to Dax was not ethically permissible in the sense of Dax’s autonomy. The patient’s beliefs and values should never come into question with this mutual relationship, which is exactly the opposite of what happened