BURTON V. FLORIDA

Burton v. Florida

Abstract

The case cited here is a argument between the State of Florida and an individual and, on the surface, and appears not to be a inquiry of federal law. Whead covering is worrying is the fact thead covering Ms. Burton was held against her will, with the collusion of Tallahassee General Hospital, on the alignment of a State Court referee. Stripped of all its supposed "good aims" this case smacks of totalitarianism and its rotten odor of "the State knows what's good for you." If the intent of subjecting Ms. Burton to all this was to verify a issue about the dangers of fuming and to recall other ones of the power of the State to enforce its outlooks of morality, Dr. Buel-Foresthoefel's permit should be revoked and this anonymous referee impeached for misuse of judicial authority.

Burton v. Florida

Summary

Ms. Samantha Burton was accepted to Tallahassee General Hospital with a diagnosis of premature labor. Ms. Burton was acquainted by her doctor, Jana Buel-Foresthoefel, that if she did not directly halt fuming tobacco and restrict herself to entire bed rest, that she risked pain a miscarriage. When Ms. Burton workout her supposed privileges to down turn remedy and leave the clinic, Dr. Buel-Foresthoefel and the clinic petitioned for a court order. An unnamed referee granted the order and Ms. Burton was organised, under punishment of contempt of court, not to depart the hospital. (Jacob 2010)

As noble as the aim to avert harm to Ms. Burton's unborn progeny may have been, does this override Ms. Burton's constitutional assurances defending her against unjust confinement and depriving her of due process? I think not.According to the story, Dr. Foresthoefel can be presumed to have made a sworn statement to the court to the effect that if Ms. Burton proceeded to fumes tobacco she would suffer a miscarriage. Ifind this odd in that I am incapable to find a lone health source that affirms Dr. Foresthoefel's contention that fuming, in and of itself, determinants premature work and/or miscarriage. Although I'm not an advocate, not only does this sound like unsound health recommendations but it appears to be bordering on perjury as well.

The question here is conspicuous: Does the State have the moral administration to compel somebody to be hospitalized against their will and to receive health care that the State deems befitting"?

The State, as part of its popular communal agreement with its people, has an obligation to defend its people from infection and injury. In fulfilling that obligation, it has the legal authority to quarantine or hospitalize an individual who may pose a threat to the well-being of others due to his illness with a communicable disease or by posing a significant danger to himself or others due to mental illness. In the current case, the accessible evidence goes wrong to demonstrate that Ms. Burton met the situation under which the State could exercise its powers. (Appel 2010)

Background

Samantha Burton, a un-married mother of two, was twenty-five weeks with child in stride of ...