Statute 444 reads, “Whoever shall during parturition of the mother destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years.” This discussion deals with the applicability of this statute to an incident wherein four pregnant women suffered damage to their fetuses as the result of an ambulance driver’s negligence.
Any interpretation of a statute by the courts must examine the language used in that statute very closely. Even a cursory examination reveals a problem: a wide range of possible interpretations. For example, “parturition” refers to the process of giving birth and is generally understood to mean “the act or process of giving birth to offspring” (Rajendran, 2000). Also, as noted by Shah (2000), a fetus is “viable” after conception and thus has legal rights (931). Therefore, only the injuries done to Marta’s and Pauliena’s fetuses are relevant in terms of Statute 444, since only those two women were actually in the process of giving birth. This interpretation is reinforced by an examination of the phrase “a child in the state of being born,” which further delineates the distinction between simply a fetus in a pregnant to-be mother and one that is actually in the process of being born. In this case, the sign that the birthing process had begun was that Marta’s and then Pauliena’s water had broken. Aysha and Greta’s had not and in fact, their children were born weeks later.
A further examination of the statute should focus on the language “destroy the life or vitality.” The statute would thus only apply when the fetus was killed as a result of the accused’s actions. Th...
... middle of paper ...
... degree of negligence on the part of the driver and any affirmative defense he might invoke regarding the fact that he was providing emergency services may substantially weaken such prosecution and open the door wide for appeal of a conviction.
Works Cited
Morgan, David L., William R. Trail, and Vicky A. Trompler. "Liability Immunity as a Legal Defense for Recent Emergency Medical Services System Litigation." Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 10.02 (1995): 82-90.
Rajendran, Amudha. "Parturition." Jstor. The Kenyon Review, Spring 2000. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.
Quarles, James C. "Some Statutory Construction Problems and Approaches in Criminal Law." Vand. L. Rev. 3 (1949): 531.
Shah, Mamta K. "Inconsistencies in the Legal Status of an Unborn Child: Recognition of a Fetus' as Potential Life." Hofstra L. Rev. 29 (2000): 931.
Tadros, Victor. "Criminal Responsibility." (2007).
There is no doubt that beneficence is an important principle that paramedics are taught to follow with every patient. In the Nola Walker case, beneficence was achieved to an extent. They performed two vital signs assessments, seven minutes apart, and assessed the laceration which was caused by her seatbelt. Walker was persistent in her refusal to be taken to hospital or any treatment. We know that the average clinical approach is much larger than what was executed, especially with a trauma victim. While the beneficence principle has not been fully implemented, the paramedics operated at the best of their ability at the time, and in a result of potentially lacking in benefitting the patients needs, they respected her aspirations to not be transported or treated. Autonomy is to have the right over your own being, so when Walker stated she doesn't need to be transported or treated is her right and the paramedics deemed her to be competent and informed enough to make that decision. Due to her refusal, the standard of beneficence was fulfilled to the length of their
Munoz was considered medically brain dead. She did not have any noted brain or brain stem activity. This meant that Marlise’s rights were terminated. The rights, then, should remain with the fetus, as it was considered alive. The hospital acting as a surrogate as the patient was unable to let his or her needs be known. Although the fetus had “abnormalitieis” didn’t mean that the fetus’s life was not worth living. Whether this is considered murder is far reaching, in my opinion. We should continue to preserve the life of the baby, whether it is handicap or not. We cannot preserve the life of Marlise, because there is no life to preserve. Taking Marlise off the support means that her own body will be unable to maintain life. What happened to the sanctity of the baby’s life is this particular
Tennessee’s wrongful death statute does not allow a wrongful death for a viable fetus that is not first born alive. If there is no live birth, the fetus is not considered a “person” and are not entitled to the same protection as people. The Supreme Court stated that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense”, however some flexibility is considered but viability remains the critical point. Ultimately, the Report of Ethics Committee of American Fertility Society refers to the preembryos as neither person or property, but rather a special respect to protect the welfare of potential offspring and create obligations to prevent any harm to those potentially born after transfer. Therefore, the preembryos occupy a special category requiring respect for potential of human life. I personally agree with this viewpoint, as it acts as the middle ground in determining that the preembryos do not possess rights as people do, but require the same amount of respect due to the potential of becoming a constitutionally-protected person.
There are other factors in determining what rights a person has in a given circumstance. None of her arguments apply to pregnancy in which sex was voluntary and no effort was made to prevent pregnancy. She argues that abortion is permissible in three types of cases: (1) Rape (violinist experiment), (2) Threat to mothers’ life (death), (3) Cases where attempts were made to prevent the pregnancy (failure of contraception). At the end of her paper she says we must not fall below the standard of minimally decent Samaritans (MDS). However, she doesn’t really says what that standard
Thomson appeals to the strongest case for abortion, rape, to define the rights of the fetus and the pregnant person. Thomson concludes that there are no cases where the person pregnant does not have the right to choose an abortion. Thomson considers the right to life of the pregnant person by presenting the case of a pregnant person dying as a result of their pregnancy. In this case, the right of the pregnant person to decide what happens to their body outweighs both the fetus and the pregnant person’s right to life.
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
Approximately 1.6 million murders are committed legally each year. While the mutilated bodies of the victims lay waiting in infested dumpsters to be hauled off to a landfill, the murderers are in their offices waiting for their next patient. This is the murder of an innocent child by a procedure known as abortion. Abortion stops the beating of an innocent child’s heart. People must no longer ignore the scientific evidence that life begins at the moment of conception. People can no longer ignore the medical and emotional problems an abortion causes women. People must stop denying the facts about the procedure, and start hearing the silent screams of unborn children. The argument by the pro-abortion side is that the unborn child is not truly a child. Pro-abortionists believe that life begins at birth and that a fetus is only a blob of tissue until it is born. Abortion is the dismembering and killing of a human life-an unborn baby- not just a “blob of tissue”. “ But it is scientific and medical fact based on experimental evidence, that a fetus is a living, growing, thriving human being, directing his or her own development” (Fetal Development). A fetus is not just a blob of tissue; rather a fetus is Latin for “offspring or young one.” At a US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting, most scientists said that life begins at conception or implantation of the embryo. No scientist at the meeting claimed that life begins at birth (Factbot). Professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo clinic stated “…by all criteria of modern biology, life is present from the moment of conception” (fetal development). Not only has science proven that a fetus is truly a human, the simple facts also confer abortion kills t...
Warren, Mary Anne , and Mappes and D. DeGrazia. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.
Abortion in the United States is a legal form of murder. Each and every year over a million babies are murdered and it must be stopped now before it will continue to get out of hand each and every day. We have discussed in this essay that a fetus is a living humans and not something that can just be thrown away. An unborn child is still a child and he or she needs an opportunity to grow and live a long successful life just like the rest of us have gotten the privilege to do. Abortion cannot go on any longer. More and more live are lost every day.
Yet, I have clearly shown that the fetus is a separate person with its own heart, lungs, brain, and all different body organs. The oppositions would say that it is the woman’s right to terminate her own pregnancies. Yet, in the eyes of the law two charges are filed when someone kills a woman and her fetus, so how is it her right to kill another human being? A woman doesn’t have four arms, four legs, two heads, four kidneys, two hearts, and two brains… so how is it only her body?