Florida V. Samantha Burton

In a previous posting I expressed concerns that an individual's right to end his own life could, at some point, be twisted by a less-than-ethical State into a demand that one has an "obligation" to die if it became too burdensome on the State to provide the individual with health care or other related resources.

Recently, the Associated Press (AP) carried a story that seems to demonstrate that my concerns are quite valid.

Ms. Samantha Burton was admitted to Tallahassee General Hospital with a diagnosis of premature labor. Ms. Burton was informed by her physician, Jana Buel-Foresthoefel, that if she did not immediately stop smoking cigarettes and confine herself to complete bed rest, that she risked suffering a miscarriage. When Ms. Burton exercised her supposed rights to decline treatment and leave the hospital, Dr. Buel-Foresthoefel and the hospital petitioned for a court order. An unnamed judge granted the order and Ms. Burton was ordered, under penalty of contempt of court, not to leave the hospital

As noble as the intention to prevent harm to Ms. Burton's unborn child may have been, does this override Ms. Burton's constitutional guarantees protecting her against unjust confinement and depriving her of due process? I think not.

According to the story, Dr. Foresthoefel can be assumed to have made a sworn statement to the court to the effect that if Ms. Burton continued to smoke cigarettes she would suffer a miscarriage. I find this strange in that I am unable to find a single medical source that confirms Dr. Foresthoefel's contention that smoking, in and of itself, causes premature labor and/or miscarriage. Although I'm not an attorney, not only does this sound like unsound medical advice but it appears to be bordering on perjury as well.

The question here is obvious: Does the State have the moral authority to compel someone to be hospitalized against their will and to receive medical care that the State deems "appropriate"?

The State, as part of its democratic social contract with its citizens, has an obligation to protect its citizens from disease and injury. In fulfilling that obligation, it has the legal authority to quarantine or hospitalize an individual who may pose a threat to the well-being of others due to his illness with a communicable disease or by posing a significant danger to himself or others due to mental illness. In the current case, the available evidence fails to demonstrate that Ms. Burton met the conditions under which the State could exercise its powers.

Admittedly, the case cited here is a dispute between the State of Florida and an individual and, on the surface, and appears not to be a question of federal law. What is troubling is the fact that Ms. Burton was held against her will, with the collusion of Tallahassee General Hospital, on the order of a State Court judge. Stripped of all its supposed "good intentions" this case smacks of totalitarianism and its rotten odor of "the State knows what's good for you."

In my book, that's the same logic that sent millions to the gulag and to the "Work Makes You Free" camps such as Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. For some reason, I think that the "slippery slope" just got a lot slipperier.

If the intent of subjecting Ms. Burton to all this was to prove a point about the dangers of smoking and to remind others of the power of the State to enforce its views of morality, Dr. Buel-Foresthoefel's license should be revoked and this anonymous judge impeached for abuse of judicial authority.