Week 5 TCO Assessment

 1. Question : (TCO 4) What are your initial, nonlegal, thoughts on this case? How would you decide it based on your own belief structures? For example, if you were the judge in this case, would you would allow Mr. Trident to leave the hospital, thus bringing about his death? Or would you feel for Mr. Trident but side with the hospital because he clearly is not in the right mind to make such decisions for himself? Or would you perhaps side with the hospital because people should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment or go to the extreme of ordering the hospital to aid in the shortening of his life so that he did not have to suffer a painful death? What would you do? Please put some thought into your answer and provide at least 4–5 sentences as you explain it.   Student Answer:   In this case I would have to side with Mr. Trident. A psychological review was made by a psychologist which found him to be sound of mind and capable of making his own decisions. Given the facts of the case to which Mr. Trident knows what is before him, he should be released from the hospital. As the 14th amendments states "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." On that statement alone Mr. Trident is free to do as he pleases even if the doctor(s) feel they have a moral right to keep treating him nor leave the hospital. Mr. Trident has the right to decide for himself knowing that his circumstances do not allow him to live a fulfilling life anymore. I believe this circumstance both falls on moral and legal reasoning in my opinion.   Instructor Explanation: Answers should reflect the student’s initial reaction to the case and his or her thoughts behind what should be done. They should also be at least 4–5 sentences long.        Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 2. Question : (TCO 4) What is the difference between moral and legal reasoning?   Student Answer:  Moral reasoning is based upon personal views rather than legal considerations.    Legal reasoning focuses on what the law states only.    Moral reasoning can vary with cultural beliefs, whereas legal reasoning is more static within a nation.    Legal reasoning is concerned with precedent.    All of the above    A and C only       Instructor Explanation: Refer to the Week 5 Lecture and reading.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 3. Question : (TCO 4) In a true legal argument, should legal reasoning or moral reasoning be used?   Student Answer:  Legal    Moral    Both    Neither       Instructor Explanation: Refer to the Week 5 Lecture and reading.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 4. Question : (TCO 4) Mr. Trident is arguing that the hospital has violated his 14th Amendment right to due process. What part of the 14th Amendment is he referring to in his argument?   Student Answer:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.    No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.    Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.    Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws    All of the above    None of the above       Instructor Explanation: Refer to the 14th Amendment.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 5. Question : (TCO 4) Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health is a case studied in the right-to-die debate. What precedent did it help to establish?   Student Answer:  Americans have a constitutional right to die.    Americans can refuse medical treatment.    Americans must be clear in stating their wishes regarding medical treatment.    A and B    B and C    All of the above       Instructor Explanation: Refer to the Cruzan case.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 6. Question : (TCO 4) How does the Cruzan case factor into Mr. Trident’s argument?   Student Answer:  It grants the right to refuse medical treatment.    It supports the hospital in its claim that Mr. Trident cannot refuse its help.    It forces the doctors to assist in Mr. Trident’s death by providing him medication to bring about his death.    A and B    A and C    None of the above     Instructor Explanation: Refer to the Cruzan case and the given scenario.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 7. Question : (TCO 4) Given the precedent established in the Cruzan case, how would you now have to decide the case if you were the judge?   Student Answer:  I would allow Mr. Trident to leave the hospital, thus bringing about his death.    I would feel for Mr. Trident but side with the hospital, because he clearly is not in the right mind to make such decisions for himself.    I would side with the hospital, because people should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment.    I would require that the hospital aid Mr. Trident in shortening his life due to his constitution right to die.       Instructor Explanation: Refer to the Cruzan case and the given scenario.   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments: Question 8. Question : (TCO 4) What other U.S. Supreme Court cases deal with the right-to-die issue?   Student Answer:  Plessy v. Ferguson    Marbury v. Madison    Vacco v. Quill    All of the above    None of the above   Instructor Explanation: Refer to your research on other right to die cases   Points Received: 5 of 5   Comments:  * Times are displayed in (GMT-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada)