Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Drug Testing for Pregnant Women. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page research paper that discusses the ethics of a South Carolina policy, which was struck down by the Supreme Court, that tested and arrested any pregnant woman who tested positive. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: KL9_khpredtest.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
below. Citation styles constantly change, and these examples may not contain the most recent updates.?? Drug Testing for Pregnant Women Enterprises
Inc. By - properly! After a rise in cocaine use by pregnant women,
the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), in cooperation with the city of Charleston, established a policy that enabled the city to prosecute mothers whose newborns tested positive for
drugs at birth ("Oyez," 2001). MUSC obstetrical patients who were arrested after testing positive for cocaine filed suit, challenging the validity of the policy, and asserting that "warrantless and nonconsensual
drugs tests," which were conducted for the purposes of criminal investigation constituted "unconstitutional searches" ("Oyez," 2001). Initially, a jury found in favor of the city and this verdict was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, which held that the "special needs" involved validates the searches as reasonable ("Oyez," 2001). When this case, Ferguson v. City of Charleston, came
before the Supreme Court, the question before the Court was: Is a state hospitals performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patients criminal conduct for law
enforcement purposes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the patient has not consented to the procedure? ("Oyez," 2001). In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled
that the MUSC policy was, indeed, unconstitutional (Foubister, 2001). Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, explained that the "special-needs exception does not apply to a policy that
has as its central and indispensable feature the use of law enforcement" (Foubister, 2001). Justice Stevens also pointed out that "under the citys view virtually any nonconsensual suspicionless search could
...