Mcfall V. Shimp: Right to Bodily Security
Case Paper McFall v. Shimp
McFall v. Shimp: Right to Bodily Security
In 1978 a case was brought to civil court to challenge a well-established American idea of a person’s absolute right to bodily security. The Plaintiff, McFall, suffered from a rare bone marrow disease and was in need of a bone marrow transplant. The Defendant, Shimp, was a suitable potential donor who refused to undergo the procedure needed to harvest the bone marrow. When Shimp refused, McFall sought an injunction to compel him to do so based on an out dated statute of an old English court which the current court is derived from. The court was faced with the question of whether or not an individual is under legal compulsion to give aid to save another.
Judge John Flaherty denied the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction based upon our society’s fundamental belief in a person’s right to bodily security. Judge Flaherty felt that compelling Shimp to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which American society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual. For this case it was prudent to recognize when ethics and the law meet and when they repel. The court realized that ethically, this decision rested with the Defendant, and the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. Regardless the court ruled in favor of the defended to protect an individuals rights and freedoms.
When reviewing this case, there were several main issues that had to be considered before forming a decision. The first being if the ancient statute presented by the Plaintiff held precedent or not. In concurrence with Judge Flaherty, the statute of King Edward I does not currently hold precedent. Not only is this statute about seven hundred years old, it is also formed to serve the needs of a society that had different priorities. In the time period of King Edward I, the society had collectivist values in which an individual had a duty to
McFall v. Shimp: Right to Bodily Security
In 1978 a case was brought to civil court to challenge a well-established American idea of a person’s absolute right to bodily security. The Plaintiff, McFall, suffered from a rare bone marrow disease and was in need of a bone marrow transplant. The Defendant, Shimp, was a suitable potential donor who refused to undergo the procedure needed to harvest the bone marrow. When Shimp refused, McFall sought an injunction to compel him to do so based on an out dated statute of an old English court which the current court is derived from. The court was faced with the question of whether or not an individual is under legal compulsion to give aid to save another.
Judge John Flaherty denied the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction based upon our society’s fundamental belief in a person’s right to bodily security. Judge Flaherty felt that compelling Shimp to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which American society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual. For this case it was prudent to recognize when ethics and the law meet and when they repel. The court realized that ethically, this decision rested with the Defendant, and the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. Regardless the court ruled in favor of the defended to protect an individuals rights and freedoms.
When reviewing this case, there were several main issues that had to be considered before forming a decision. The first being if the ancient statute presented by the Plaintiff held precedent or not. In concurrence with Judge Flaherty, the statute of King Edward I does not currently hold precedent. Not only is this statute about seven hundred years old, it is also formed to serve the needs of a society that had different priorities. In the time period of King Edward I, the society had collectivist values in which an individual had a duty to
Cited: Calabresi, Guido, “Do We Own Our Bodies?” (1991). Faculty Scholorship Series. Paper 2011. Justice Brennan, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 407 U.S. 453, 438 (1972). Marx, “Marx & Endels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy”, ( Lewis S. Freuer ed. 1959). McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90 (1978).