Death by Detox: Substance Withdrawal, a Possible Death Row for Individuals in Custody.

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2023-01-01
Dorothea R Carleton
{"title":"Death by Detox: Substance Withdrawal, a Possible Death Row for Individuals in Custody.","authors":"Dorothea R Carleton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suffering through substance withdrawal is a major problem for the majority of individuals in custody, yet there are no guidelines or standards to ensure their safety. Instead, individuals in custody are having their Constitutional rights violated and many die at the hands of the justice system. When their families seek accountability for the lack of adequate care provided by correctional facilities and employees, families are faced with a lack of consistency from one circuit to the next for knowing as to the correct standard to have a successful claim. Strain v. Regalado was a chance for the Supreme Court to address this issue, but by denying cert in that case, the Court has signed off on the injustice these individuals face. This note proposed having the subjective prong for the deliberate indifference claim for inadequate medical care for withdrawal for individuals in custody presumed. Allowing the subjective prong to be presumed better aligns with the reality of this issue because correctional officers see many inmates suffering withdrawal and the symptoms which indicate the need for medical intervention are similar to those that would indicate a medical need in any other situation. Additionally, correctional officers are purportedly held to a higher standard. This note then proposed a federal standard for claims and medical care. These are both basic rights in the United States, unless and until a person is in custody.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Suffering through substance withdrawal is a major problem for the majority of individuals in custody, yet there are no guidelines or standards to ensure their safety. Instead, individuals in custody are having their Constitutional rights violated and many die at the hands of the justice system. When their families seek accountability for the lack of adequate care provided by correctional facilities and employees, families are faced with a lack of consistency from one circuit to the next for knowing as to the correct standard to have a successful claim. Strain v. Regalado was a chance for the Supreme Court to address this issue, but by denying cert in that case, the Court has signed off on the injustice these individuals face. This note proposed having the subjective prong for the deliberate indifference claim for inadequate medical care for withdrawal for individuals in custody presumed. Allowing the subjective prong to be presumed better aligns with the reality of this issue because correctional officers see many inmates suffering withdrawal and the symptoms which indicate the need for medical intervention are similar to those that would indicate a medical need in any other situation. Additionally, correctional officers are purportedly held to a higher standard. This note then proposed a federal standard for claims and medical care. These are both basic rights in the United States, unless and until a person is in custody.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
排毒致死:药物戒断,羁押中的个人可能面临的死囚。
对于大多数被拘留的人来说,药物戒断是一个主要问题,但没有指导方针或标准来确保他们的安全。相反,被拘留者的宪法权利受到侵犯,许多人死于司法系统之手。当他们的家人寻求惩教设施和雇员缺乏适当照顾的责任时,他们面临着从一个环节到下一个环节缺乏一致性的问题,因为他们不知道正确的标准来获得成功的索赔。斯特兰诉雷加拉多案是最高法院解决这一问题的一个机会,但通过对该案的否认,法院已经批准了这些人面临的不公正待遇。该说明建议对假定的被拘留者的撤离提供不充分医疗照顾的故意漠不关心索赔提出主观理由。允许主观判断更符合这一问题的现实,因为惩教人员看到许多囚犯出现戒断症状,表明需要医疗干预的症状与在任何其他情况下表明需要医疗干预的症状相似。此外,据说惩教人员的标准更高。这份说明随后提出了索赔和医疗保健的联邦标准。这些都是美国的基本权利,除非一个人被拘留。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice. Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature. How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many. When Governors Prioritize Individual Freedom over Public Health: Tort Liability for Government Failures. Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1