-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ... From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Wed Mar 21 19:59:07 2001 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Garry Siegel: "Re: OB-GYN-L digest 1426" Previous message: K Dew: "Re: use of nasal sprays in pregnancy" In reply to: Dean Huffman: "Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ..." Next in thread: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ..." wonder if this decision implies that state laws which provide for the involuntary incarceration of pregnant women who use cocaine are similarly unconstitutional? art At Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Dean Huffman wrote: > >.. > >Ferguson v. Charleston >No. 99-936 >Full text: <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21mar20011130/> and ><http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-936.pdf> > >SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Diagnostic Test without Patient Consent Violates Fourth >Amendment) > >The United States Supreme Court held 6-3 (opinion by Stevens; concurrence >by Kennedy; dissent by Scalia) that a state hospital's performance of a >diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law >enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not >consented to the procedure. > >Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) ordered drug screens to be >performed on urine samples from maternity patients who were suspected of >using cocaine. Petitioners are ten women who received obstetrical care at >MUSC and who were arrested after testing positive for cocaine. Petitioners' >complaint challenged the validity of the policy under various theories, >including the claim that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted >for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches. The >Supreme Court held that the drug tests were unconstitutional. The Court >reasoned that no departure from the Fourth Amendment's protections was >justified in this case because the primary purpose of the Charleston >program was to use the threat of arrest and prosecution in order to force >women into treatment. -- art fougner, md A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote. Next message: Garry Siegel: "Re: OB-GYN-L digest 1426" Previous message: K Dew: "Re: use of nasal sprays in pregnancy" In reply to: Dean Huffman: "Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ..." Next in thread: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ..."

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:47:50 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.