Andromeda424
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
Sorry if it's a nonsensical question (Please advise me if this is the case).
Basically, I'm reading in law books about this ruling:
720 F.2d 266 (1983)
John E. RENNIE
v.
Ann KLEIN
It says "The district court recognized a constitutional right to refuse treatment. Rennie v. Klein, 462 F.Supp. 1131 (D.N.J.1978) and 476 F.Supp. 1294 (D.N.J.1979)."
Now, this does say "constitutional right", so does this mean that such a right would apply in Michigan?
The book, calle "Landmark cases in Forensic Psychiatry", says "This case represents a treatment-driven approach to establishing a patient's right to refuse treatment", suggesting that there are alternative routes that are to be taken upon refusal of the medication.
However, based on this case the book doesn't say this means all patients in America have a right to refuse, it specifies that yes, civilly committed patients in NJ have this right based on the case. So can I use this in a court hearing in Michigan to justify refusing a blood draw in a non-emergent situation?
Basically, I'm reading in law books about this ruling:
720 F.2d 266 (1983)
John E. RENNIE
v.
Ann KLEIN
It says "The district court recognized a constitutional right to refuse treatment. Rennie v. Klein, 462 F.Supp. 1131 (D.N.J.1978) and 476 F.Supp. 1294 (D.N.J.1979)."
Now, this does say "constitutional right", so does this mean that such a right would apply in Michigan?
The book, calle "Landmark cases in Forensic Psychiatry", says "This case represents a treatment-driven approach to establishing a patient's right to refuse treatment", suggesting that there are alternative routes that are to be taken upon refusal of the medication.
However, based on this case the book doesn't say this means all patients in America have a right to refuse, it specifies that yes, civilly committed patients in NJ have this right based on the case. So can I use this in a court hearing in Michigan to justify refusing a blood draw in a non-emergent situation?