Can a mentally ill man refuse medical treatment

1.What is the basic issue in this case The basic issue in this case is right of mentally ill patients to refuse treatment prescribed by doctors. In this instance, after being admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Scott Starsons doctors recommended that he be treated with drugs and physical restraints to curb his bipolar disorder. After uttering death threats to neighbours, doctors felt that this was in the best interest of Starson to undergo such treatment. However, Starson did not want to be administered these drugs because he felt they diminished his intellectual capacity. The issue in this case is whether Starson has the right to deny his doctors recommendations despite his violent bipoar history.

2. Outline the arguments of Starson and his legal counsel Starson argued that the prescribed drugs would diminish his intellectual capacity and turn him into a normal person. Starson argued that he did not want to live normally because he believed it to be a boring life. Starsons council reasoned that their client had the right and mental capacity to make his own medical decisions and not be forced to follow the recommendations of his doctor. His legal counsel argued that the doctors did not have the right to force their client to undergo.

3 Briefly outline the arguments of Starsons doctors and their legal council Dr Swwayze and his legal council argued that Starson was incapable of making rational judgements on his behalf and should be subject to his doctors recommendations. The doctors believed that it was in Starsons best interest to abide by his doctors advice because he was incapable of making sound decisions by himself. Swayzes counsel pointed out the Health Care Consent Act, which gives doctors the right to treat patients without their consent if they are found unable to make informed decisions. The doctors felt that if Starson refused treatment the community and himself would be put at great risk.

4 . Do you support the majority or minority judgement of the Supreme Court? Defend your position.

Personally I side with the dissenting justices because I believe that Mr Starsons refusal to take his prescription puts himself as well as his community at risk. After uttering two death threats to his neighbours, Starson has demonstrated his violent and irrational behaviour. If this debilitating mental disease is left unchecked, Starsons condition may deteriorate even further; leading to violence against others or even himself. Clearly, Mr. Starson was a remarkably intelligent man, however his recent actions have shown that he no longer is capable of thinking rationally. It is therefore the doctors responsibility to force Starson to undergo treatment in order to protect himself and his community. Personally, if a violent bipolar man lived in my neighbourhood, I would hope that his doctors would have the power prescribe the necessary medication to curb his disorder. Although forcing someone to take

medication may violate some of their rights, I believe this violation is justified in an effort to protect society and the individual. In conclusion I disagree with the court ruling because it puts Starson as well as his community at risk.

5. Should the Ontario government amend the Health Care Consent Act to give priority to medical opinion over that of the patient? Why or why not? I believe that the Ontario government should maintain the Health Care Consent Act because it allows doctors to provide support to those who are unable to make informed decisions regarding their health. It ensures that the mentally handicapped are taken care of and given the best possible medical treatment. If the Act is amended those with severe mental disabilities may refuse treatment; putting themselves or others at risk. For example, those suffering from severe depression may refuse treatment, which may unfortunately lead to suicide. Additionally, a situation may arise when an autistic person is incapable of communicating and therefore unable to receive the proper medication. This act may infringe on some individuals rights, however its purpose is to protect and ensure medical attention to those who are unable to act for themselves. I believe that the infringement on some peoples right is worth benefit of ensuring medical care for the most vulnerable members of society. Essentially, this act must stay in place because it protects the most vulnerable members of society and enables doctors to provide the necessary support to their patients.

The right to approve educational resources

1. Based on section 92 of the charter the provincial government has responsibility for education.

2. The provincial ministries of education are tasked with numerous responsibilities which include creating a curriculum, setting standards and guidelines for school personal, establishing graduation requirements and approving textbooks and learining aids. On the other hand, local school boards are responsible for hiring teachers, fund management, budgeting as well as the implementation of safe school policies. Essentially, the provincial ministry sets parameters that every school in the must abide by and the local boards ensures the school have the funds and resources to do so.

3. Initially section 76 of BCs school Act was not followed because the books in question were not allowed in school based on religious principals against homosexuality. Most religions teach that homosexuality is wrong, however prohibiting them in school violates the school boards secular policy. However, the school boards secular principals were followed after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the books to be made available.

4. Canadians pride themselves on a society that not only tolerates those who are different but celebrates diversity. Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, religion or ethnicity enjoys the same protection and legal rights as everyone else. Personally I agree with the Chief Justices opinion because her belief that children should be introduced to the idea of tolerance at a young age promotes Canadas accepting nature. In our constant effort to foster a caring and accepting society, children should be exposed to the values and beliefs of other people. Although some may find these books inappropriate the practice of same sex marriage and adoption is legal and such resources should be made available to students. The provincial board and the local school board have the responsibility to ensure a safe and accepting environment for all its students. Regardless of their sexual orientation, students should feel safe and welcome in school. If we teach our children that it is ok to overlook the opinions or beliefs of others, we will undoubtedly be promoting intolerance and hatred.