Answer each “SECTION” separately with it’s own sources (2) They are all completely different questions so please separate. One source per section
SECTION 1: Would it be permissible to remove the organs of healthy, deceased prisoners to save the lives of five to eight others who need organ transplants?
Take the viewpoint that laws should be altered so that anyone dying in prison is deemed to consent.
Should prisoners in the nation’s jails and prisons have the same rights to consent as others?
Apparently, the current practice is often to use rewards to obtain the consent of prisoners. Does this seem fair?
SECTION 2:
When did the U.S. decide that people with mental illness have rights?
The history of mental illness coincides with the civil rights movement although to this day, the courts have not recognized a right to mental health treatment. Up until the turn of the 19th century, people with mental illness were confined indefinitely. Then, in the 1970s, the extensive use of psychotropic drugs made involuntary hospitalizations less necessary and the states began closing their state mental hospitals. For the first time, people with mental illness who preferred to live in their homes and were not a danger to themselves or others were free to do so. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the doors to deinstitutionalization when it held that mental illness alone could not justify confining people indefinitely in state mental hospitals (O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 . Up until this time, people could be committed to state mental hospitals, without treatment programs, even if they were not dangerous to themselves or others. Four years later the Court held that the due process rights of the mentally ill require a higher standard than a regular civil proceeding if it might result in indefinite commitments (Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418. In 1982, the Court held that mentally ill people have a constitutionally protected right to refuse drug therapy (Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 . The Court explained that involuntary commitment provides no basis to infer someone is incompetent without a further judicial finding.
Today, people with mental illness now have rights, but if they cannot afford treatment, they are often either homeless or imprisoned. The prevailing view is that the nation’s entrenched mental health system does not adequately provide for the mentally ill; a cumbersome process has struck a balance too far toward preserving due process rights with inadequate attention being directed to the need for treatment.
