Thesis: According to the Fourth Amendment, in
the case ‘Ferguson vs. Charleston’,
the patient was denied her rights of privacy,
and therefore the results of the tests conducted
without her consent, were illegal.
Wherever people live, there is need for a system
of law that can keep in check the activity of
the people as well as institutions. Such a system
is necessary because of the fact that it is always
possible for people and institutions to exceed
their limits and act inappropriately.
In the history of the United States there have
been many changes that have been made in order
to improve the legal system. A good legal system
is one that serves justice effectively, and satisfies
most of the law-abiding citizens of a country
properly.
The United States has seen some bad days in view
of particular cases, and it is because of these
bad days that there was a need for changes to
be made that would improve and safeguard the lives
of the citizens through legal controls.
The criminal justice system was particularly
setup to handle trouble-causers in society effectively.
The aim was to organize a system that would work
uniformly to serve justice for crimes committed
and put an end to individuals or groups bullying
members of society and getting off easily.
In order to do so, members well acquainted with
crime and law created a system that would help
solve the problems of murder, theft and other
forms of injustice. With the passage of time,
out of these laws newer and improved laws have
improved that are more specific and relevant to
this age. However, root of the newer laws are
the amendments that stand to protect a persons
rights such as the right to privacy (Scalia, 2001).
In view of improved law with the passage of
time and the application of the amendments in
the US law, protection of the right of privacy
is one of the first things that need to be ensured.
In accordance wit the fourth amendment, only if
there is reasonable doubt a search warrant can
be granted, but the focal point is that there
has to be sound evidence for a search of ones
property to be conducted.
This law was established in order for citizens
to feel safe in his or her home without the interference
of the very law that is supposed to protect them.
This particularly refers to women in hospitals
who need to be protected from unlawful interference
or non-consensual drug tests (tests conducted
on patients without their permission).
On the other hand it is also understood that
it is the duty of the law to protect other members
of a community in case there is a particular member
that is a risk to the lives of others. This refers
to cases of unborn children, who are of course
directly affected by actions such as unnecessary
abortions when a patient is perfectly capable
of delivering a child. However, in view of the
fourth amendment, it is said that it is better
not to take a risk and seize the person before
s/he acts.
It also might be asserted that the fact hospital
staff carrying out un-authorized tests and handing
the results over to the police is unethical and
breeches confidence of patients.
In the case of Fergusson vs. Charleston, the
Supreme Court ruled that the Medical University
of South Carolina violated the rights of maternity
patients, according to the Fourth Amendment (Erowid,
2004).
Patients were exposed to drug tests that were
actually opposed to the amendment because of the
fact that the police along with the hospital were
in fact misusing the hospital’s premises.
A patient quite obviously comes to a hospital
for treatment and not for scrutiny. In view of
this, it is unlawful for patients to be checked
for the use of particular drugs.
This is especially in the case where there are
no grounds for suspicion (Erowid, 2004).
In the case of Charleston vs. Fergusson, the
ties with the testing of patients are racial.
This means that patients are more likely to be
tested if they are from ethnic groups in which
individuals widely indulge in drug use.
The tests conducted for use of drugs in pregnant
women is part of the war on drugs program in the
United States. However, it is apparent that is
the colored people that suffer more through these
intrusions. Out of 30 plaintiffs, it was found
that 29 of them were colored minorities, and the
30th case was a white woman who was married to
a colored man. This particular fact was recorded
in the hospital file of the woman (Erowid, 2004).
In addition this absurdity, it must be realized
what kind of test was actually being conducted
and what samples were being used for the tests
before the results were handed over to the police.
In Charleston vs. Fergusson, like other patients,
samples of urine samples from the patients were
used.
These samples that were given with the consent
of the patients for testing, and only hospital
and treatment use, were in fact made use of for
legal implications (Erowid, 2004).
It is these legal implications that were not
in sync with patient consent. In view of this,
the manner in which the sample of Fergusson’s
urine sample was used was in fact unlawful and
a violation of the fourth amendment.
Though it may be argued that urine is a waste
material, and no longer remains the property of
an individual once excreted, it must also be asserted
that the urine as a ‘sample’ was given
by the patient’s consent strictly for medical
treatment purposes and not for it to be made use
of against them.
It must be realized at this point that ‘consent’
is a very important term here. It must be remembered
that no one would feel good about a particular
item being taken away from them for a particular
use, and then that same item being used for something
else. This is especially in the case of that item
being used against the expectations and likes
of an individual.
Precisely, this is what the Fergusson case is
about. However, the law argued that since urine
may be treated as a waste substance and dumped
just like garbage outside one’s home for
removal, it no longer remains the property of
an individual. It may then be used in anyway by
the law in any way they think fit. This argument
is fine. However, it must also be argued that
urine is not something that one gets rid off outside
one’s home (Erowid, 2004).
This is because it would be discharged through
a toilet facility. In this case, it would be impossible
for a hospital to have access to it. It simply
not possible for the hospital to go ad collect
a sample through the sewer.
In this way, the sample that is provided with
the patient’s consent for medical purposes
is in fact valuable and not waste; it is used
for determining particular directions for treatment.
Therefore, Fergusson had fully entrusted the
valuable sample of urine to the hospital staff
in order for them to deal with her case. However,
she was deceived by them in more than one way.
The hospital had conducted an inappropriate test
to begin with, and then they had submitted the
results of this test to the police. How would
any one in future seek medical attention if patients
cannot trust them?
In view of this, it must also be considered
that the hospital gave no indication whatsoever
that they would and could use sample s of any
kind in an investigation for drug use. Had this
been the case perhaps then Fergusson would not
be able to complain for what had happened to her.
However, it is clear enough that it is with in
the tenets of the hospital to conduct these tests,
and they still never informed their patients.
This is clearly deceitful, and it is no wonder
that patients today object to it. Particularly,
in the case of Fergusson, which is perhaps the
most well-known of such cases, the people have
succeeded in re-asserting the rights they have
according the Fourth Amendment (Erowid, 2004).
In addition to several other amendments that
are clearly supportive of the rights of individuals,
the Fourth Amendment is an extremely important
one. The American legal system is one that has
focused upon its amendments in order to make sure
they are applied to the most specific cases, and
it is cases like Fergusson vs. Charleston that
are supported by the amendments.
With the inventions and innovations in this
modern era there are correspondingly newer laws
and amendments being made to curtail crimes being
committed. However, on following the amendments,
newer laws need not be made; amendments such as
the Fourth Amendment need to be applied to the
situations at hand. As demonstrated in the Fergusson
vs.
Charleston case, the law needed to be applied
to the situation, and as it worked out, the rights
of the individuals in question were granted.
References:
Erowid, E. (2004). US Supreme Court Strikes Down
Hospital Practice of Giving Drug Test Results
To Police Without Patient Consent. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_law1.shtml
Ferguson vs. the City of Charleston, SC, Drug
Policy Alliance. (2004). http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/womenpregnan/fergusonvsth/
Scalia, J. (2001). Dissenting: Supreme Court of
the United States,
The Fourth Amendment, The Constitution of the
United States. (1996).
|