Newman

In Newman, the court reiterated the old common view of the eminent jurist Judge Blackstone when describing how the court should view "property" rights of the physical body of the dead. How does Judge Blackstone's definition differ from the modern interpretation and how modern demand fuels the movement to move to the "presumed consent" view of the property rights of the dead (or the families of the dead) with regard to organ donation? (Points : 50)

The right of an individual to his or her own body would seem to be an inalienable right. It seems apparent that a person should be able to do as he or she wishes with his or her body because it is part of that individual’s property. Blackstone’s description of the common law, holding that a dead body is not subject of property right. After reading the case on Newman vs Sathyavaglswaran I was furious to the fact that the parent of the deceased was not notified on removing the corneas of their children. Also upon reading the case online found out that the case was dismissed by the district court for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

I thought that the family or the next of kin of a deceased person has the right to either donate the organs or not to donate them. I just think that the coroner that decided to take upon himself to remove parts of the body without the consent of parents or next of kin should be liable even though that they were in need of those cornea it should have been done appropriately before doing something that can’t be undone.

What is the historical background of ascribing to the theory of compulsory vaccination, forced treatment, and quarantine? In today's world, do we face like kind threats to the public health that support continuing this policy or have we arrived to a point where this path is no longer necessary? What about the modern phenomenon of a court ordering an ill person with highly contagious infectious disease to take a prescribed course of medication...