Re: Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ... -- REPLY
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu Mar 22 12:04:28 2001
Dean -
here's a not too farfetched scenario - woman is brought via 911 to the
er 29 wks pregnant and comatose. no drug testing? even in the interest
of the unborn?
art
At Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Dean Huffman wrote:
>
>I suspect that is a whole different issue. Just be careful with the fourth
>amendment.
>
>- - - -
>
>Re: Of Interest And Importance To Obstetricians ...
>
>From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:59:05 -0600 (CST)
>
>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.
>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
