Szafranski Vs Dunston Case Study

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

Szafranski and Ms. Dunston would both be considered legal co-parents of the child and that Mr. Szafranski agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the child regardless of any changes between each party. Furthermore, the co-parent agreement went on to state that any eggs retrieved and cryopreserved as a result of the in vitro fertilization retrieval shall be under Ms. Dunston’s sole control and should the couple separate, Ms. Dunston will control the disposition of those pre-embryos. The co-parent agreement was never signed yet the couple moved forward with the in vitro fertilization. In May of 2010, Mr. Szafranski sent Ms. Dunston a text message effectively ending their relationship and then filed a pro se complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County three months later seeking to permanently enjoin Ms. Dunston from using the pre-embryos so he could preserve his right to not be forced into fathering a child against his will. Mr. Szafranski argued that a man and woman are in equal positions when it comes to cryopreserved embryos as they’re not inside the woman’s body. Therefore, Mr. Szafranski argued, “the constitutional right not to be a parent means the consent of both the woman and the man is required for any sue of the pre-embryos. “ In September

The facts in this case are that Harvey Pierce ambushed and shot Robin Kerl and her fiancé David Jones in the parking lot of a Madison Wal-Mart where Kerl and Jones worked. Kerl was seriously injured in the shooting, and Jones was killed. Pierce, who was Kerl’s former boyfriend, then shot and killed himself. At the time of the shooting, Pierce was a work-release inmate at the Dane County jail who was employed at a nearby Arby’s restaurant operated by Dennis Rasmussen, INC. Pierce had left work without permission at the time of the attempted murder and murder/suicide. Kerl and Jones’ estate sued DRI and Arby’s, INC. As in pertinent to this appeal, the plaintiffs alleged

The individuals discussed in the present case, Thomas and Jill Henderson, represent a married couple who have been experiencing difficulty becoming pregnant. Specifically, Thomas has a low sperm count and motility, whereas Jill has irregular ovulation. The couples’ health insurance plan, Clarion, denied coverage of an infertility treatment, Protocol I, because it concluded that the Hendersons’ condition did not constitute an illness.

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the

By comparing the English approach with the Australian approach towards the wrongful conception or pregnancy cases due to medical negligence, this can be distinguished with respect to the case of Cattanach v Melchior. In contrast with the McFarlane case, which only allows the recovery of damages for the disabled child, the Melchior case could allow the damages to be awarded for the costs of fostering a healthy child.

The central issue upon which the Supreme Court based their decision was in regard to the best interests of the child. They looked closely at the nature v. nurture argument, ruling that her psychological parents, the Racine’s, were capable of providing a healthier environment than her biological mother, Mrs. Woods. When looking at this case from a solely legal perspective, it is clear that the Court made the correct choice, considering Mrs. Woods’ ongoing battle with substance abuse coupled with her abusive relationship. However, this case, as with many could not be looked at simply from a legal perspective. Complex cultural aspects are embedded within the case that had to be considered in order to properly gauge the decisions and the effects of that decision. In the past, children were automatically placed with their biological parents or relatives, which, was viewed as standard procedure within the legal framework. Societal norms have progressed in such a way that allow for a more activist

Lastly, John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint, connecting their case to that of Roe’s. They were seeking declaratory and injunctive help and they made the District attorney the defendant. Both, John and Mary

Finally, Sucklal argues that she was denied an adequate opportunity to be heard with respect to the motions hearings on September 26, 2013, and September 5, 2014. At the outset we note that an appellant has a responsibility to cite us to “the facts material to a determination of the questions presented.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(4). Indeed, “we cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to the appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assoc., L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008). In her brief, Sucklal makes bald assertions that she was denied due process, but fails to articulate the specific circumstances that give rise to such claims. The deficiencies in the arguments notwithstanding, after a through review

Mike McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," made the front page of the Recorder, a daily legal newspaper published in San Francisco reporting on legal advice and interests of attorneys and legal practitioners. How did he make his article such a success? What made it front page worthy in the eyes of this legal audience? McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," appeals to a legal audience by presenting an unbiased framework and evidence.

Besides performing a botched abortion on his daughter, he was also allowed custody of his daughter, despite that the fact that there is the suspicion of abuse. In the case of Samantha Deo’s abortion, it could be argued that if she lives in a state with many rights of consent for minors, even some as old as twelve years old, it could be argued that Samantha Deo could get an abortion or aids for contraception without her father’s consent (“An Overview of Minor’s Consent Law”). In this case, she would have been able to have less complications due to a botched abortion without needing her father’s consent. We could also draw a lot of parallels to Faust v. Johnson (1998), which examines whether there should be greater rights for minors as well as custody between separated or divorced parents (Faust v. Johnson). Being that the description mentions Daniel Deo is the custodial parent, we could assume that he is the primary parent. Since there is evidence of abuse, not unlike Faust, Samantha Deo should have greater rights as a minor, because she is aware of the fact that she is being abused and since she is older, she should have more influence on which parent has custody. This was not unlike the child of Faust and Johnson, who was aware that he was not emotionally well off with his mother, was more knowledgeable about medical problems than some adults, which resulted in his influence of living with his father

The father of the foetus to be aborted has no right to be consulted or

Women that do not want to birth an embryo and have acquired pregnancy from a partner that does may cause the father to argue and convince the mother to use her body to carry his fetus to term. A great example of the fetus only being the male’s interest and pregnancy being the result from both partners engaging in sexual acts to produce an offspring is stated in the Decision To Abort article. The Decision To Abort article states, “Steve did pursue his interests in sex, companionship, and procreation in morally legitimate ways. In fact, this fetus is the object and result of his pursuit of these interests. Thus, this fetus is a legitimate object of Steve's concern and hence is his and only his. Given this, if Michelle destroys this fetus without his consent, she will cause Steve a wrongful harm. Specifically, she will harm Steve by interfering with his interest in procreation. Moreover, in so far as this fetus is just Steve's, he alone gets to decide on the issue of abortion” (Hanrahan 29). When a man is pursuing his interest in sexual acts to produce a child, the embryo created is his top priority and if the mother destroys his top priority without his consent, it effects the father significantly. Communication plays a huge role in whether or not the men’s input will be accepted by the biological mother in the decision of abortion.

Human oocyte cryopreservation, commonly referred to as egg freezing, is a scientific process in which a woman’s eggs are frozen and stored at sub-zero temperatures for transfer to the uterus at a later date. The procedure has traditionally been elected by women for clinical reasons, such as those undergoing chemotherapy or recurrent ovarian surgery, both of which have harmful effects on reproductive health and fertility. Women may also elect to have the procedure for non-medical reasons, such as wanting financial security first, not having a stable relationship, or wanting to pursue their career. Whatever the reason, the objective remains the same: to postpone childbearing whilst still preserving the future ability to have children.