Reference no: EM131634480

Need accurate answers to these, not just copied pasted ones.

Question 1. What are your initial, nonlegal, thoughts on this case? How would you decide it based on your own belief structures? For example, if you were the judge in this case, would you would allow Mr. Trident to leave the hospital, thus bringing about his death?

Or would you feel for Mr. Trident but side with the hospital because he clearly is not in the right mind to make such decisions for himself?

Or would you perhaps side with the hospital because people should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment or go to the extreme of ordering the hospital to aid in the shortening of his life so that he did not have to suffer a painful death?

What would you do? Please put some thought into your answer and provide at least 4-5 sentences as you explain it.

Question 2. What is the difference between moral and legal reasoning?
Moral reasoning is based upon personal views rather than legal considerations.
Legal reasoning focuses on what the law states only.
Moral reasoning can vary with cultural beliefs, whereas legal reasoning is more static within a nation.
Legal reasoning is concerned with precedent.
All of the above
A and C only

Question 3. In a true legal argument, should legal reasoning or moral reasoning be used?
Legal
Moral
Both
Neither

Question 4. Mr. Trident is arguing that the hospital has violated his 14th Amendment right to due process. What part of the 14th Amendment is he referring to in his argument?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
All of the above
None of the above

Question 5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health is a case studied in the right-to-die debate. What precedent did it help to establish?
Americans have a constitutional right to die.
Americans can refuse medical treatment.
Americans must be clear in stating their wishes regarding medical treatment.
A and B
B and C
All of the above

Question 6. How does the Cruzan case factor into Mr. Trident's argument?
It grants the right to refuse medical treatment.
It supports the hospital in its claim that Mr. Trident cannot refuse its help.
It forces the doctors to assist in Mr. Trident's death by providing him medication to bring about his death.
A and B
A and C
None of the above

Question 7. Given the precedent established in the Cruzan case, how would you now have to decide the case if you were the judge?
I would allow Mr. Trident to leave the hospital, thus bringing about his death.
I would feel for Mr. Trident but side with the hospital, because he clearly is not in the right mind to make such decisions for himself.
I would side with the hospital, because people should not be allowed to refuse medical treatment.
I would require that the hospital aid Mr. Trident in shortening his life due to his constitution right to die.

Question 8. What other U.S. Supreme Court cases deal with the right-to-die issue?
Plessy v. Ferguson
Marbury v. Madison
Vacco v. Quill
All of the above
None of the above