The USA Supreme Court, Essay Example

According to the U.S Supreme Court, the distinction between assisting suicide and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment lies within the fundamental legal principles of causation and intent (p.233). When a terminally ill patient is subjected to a life supporting equipment, he/she can hasten death by withholding treatment. This is known as withdrawing life-sustaining treatment by patient’s consent. However, if the medical practitioner gives in to a patient’s plea (who is not on life supporting equipment) to hasten death, then this is termed as assisting suicide and it is not allowed. The rationale of the court is that terminally ill patients on life supporting equipment should be treated different from terminally ill patients who are not on life supporting treatment. Those on life supporting systems are allowed to hasten their death by withholding treatment. Those who are not on life supporting machines are not allowed to hasten their death through assistance from physicians.

Personally, I do agree with the interpretation of the court. For instance, I think it is much fair and human to allow patients who are critically suffering while on life supporting equipments to hasten their death rather than staying the machine to cause a heavy burden to the family members in terms of paying bills. It is possible that such a person may not be alive but rather being supported to live by life supporting equipment. However, it is hard to determine the fate of a patient who is terminally ill but not on a life supporting equipment. Such a person is considered to be living or fighting to live. Therefore, it is not ethical to hasten the death of such a person. From the ethical perspective, I think that the court was right to bar physicians from assisting patients who are not on life supporting equipment to hasten their death.

The ideal model in relation to imprisonment according to the reading is the treatment model.  The treatment model considers an inmate as a patient who requires some attention meant to improve his social skills, behavior and believes (p.216). Unlike custody, the treatment model has a customized approach towards the needs of an inmate. Every human being has his specific needs that drive him to act in a particular way. The classification therapy is an ideal tool in ensuring that authorities attend to the each inmate’s need. This specialised attention is significant in ensuring that the prison authorities attend to some of the concerns that led to the social ills committed by the inmate. The classification therapy studies the genetic make-up of an individual and how that corresponds to his behavior. Through this the authorities are in a position to deal with such a situation. In addition, the therapy also looks into the social behavior of an individual. For example, an individual with violent conduct is secluded from the rest (p.227). This strategy is meant to ensure that such an individual does not get the chance to foster his violent behavior. This is contradicts the custody approach where an inmate is placed within the prison cells as a punishment rather than a correctional facility.

In contrast, in the treatment approach, the life of the inmate is not confined to the prison life. It also reflects the life after prison. In treatment, an individual is exposed to some vocational training and learning. Research indicates that an inmate who has undergone training is unlikely to return to prison. Secondly, reports have also shown that inmates, who have vocational and educational qualifications, are in a better position to get employed. This shows that through the treatment strategy inmates are in a position to become useful members of the society.