Global Digital Store – Ebooks and Softwares

Tag: legal

Life Lessons Learnt Post Drug Detox

[ad_1]

Drug addiction is a chronic illness that brings misery not only to the life of the individual addicted, but also to his or her loved ones. In recent years, drug addiction has become a matter of serious concern for the United States as a large number of young adults in the country are getting addicted to prescriptions drugs and illegal substances at an alarming rate.

The “drug culture” rampant in the American society takes a heavy toll on the people’s personal as well as professional lives. Sometimes, the influence of the drug can be so strong that it may lead to several other serious issues, such as increased risk for physical and mental ailments, suicidal thoughts, and even death.

However, drug addiction is a preventable and curable disease that can be treated with medications and counseling. Medical detoxification is the first step toward quitting the vice of addiction and leading a productive life. Though the detox process is essentially aimed at removing toxins from the body after a long-term drug use, it teaches some incredible life lessons along the way.

Listed below are some of the lessons that people learn during drug detox in a rehabilitation program, which can be carried out for many years to come:

1. Addiction does not discriminate

Drug addiction can affect anybody regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, race, or even socio-economic class. Often starting as an experiment, people gradually cross the illusive line of addiction, from where there is no turning back. However, the good news is that an effective detox program can help such people get rid of the devastating habit.

2. Increasing awareness about addiction is important

Being aware about the ways in which a particular drug can affect an individual and knowing about the legal repercussions of its addiction can motivate a person and his or her loved ones to stay away from the drug. Also, being aware of the right detox program is important to ensure a speedy recovery for a person who is already in the clutches of destructive drug use.

3. Addiction leaves one lonely

Drug addiction is a chronic illness that makes an individual live in solitude. Those fighting substance abuse disconnect themselves from the external world and stay aloof from friends, relatives and other loved ones. Undergoing a detox program teaches a person to make friends, lead a social life and engage in healthy habits.

4. Self-care is essential

Taking care of own body and mind is important to keep oneself fit and healthy. This is also required to ensure that a vulnerable individual does not get trapped into drug addiction, and continues to lead an addiction-free life post detox.

5. Running away from stress does not prevent drug addiction

For many individuals, addiction generally develops when they feel low, sad or depressed. However, in a detox program, a person comes face-to-face with such negative emotions and makes efforts to develop “emotional sobriety” first, in order to lead a drug-free life.

Leading a drug-free life is possible

Abusing any form of drugs, including prescription drugs, is illegal and can deteriorate the life of any individual. A comprehensive detoxification is a must in every drug rehabilitation program as it prepares the patient for further treatment procedure. The complexity of detoxification depends on the nature and length of the abuse.

[ad_2]

Source by Barbara Odozi

Views: 0

January 8, 2020
Drug Rehab And Alcohol Rehabilitation Programs

[ad_1]

There are many rehabilitation programs all over the world. They take into account particular features representing the multitude of personalities of the individuals, the cause of the addiction, as well as the chemical that provoked it. Whatever the professionals may suggest as efficient for a drug rehab, they have all agreed that nothing is more important than the motivation of the person that is going to follow the program. The motivation means an individual will to pass successfully to another stage of your life, a better one.

How do you know that you are a drug addict? If your whole life depends on taking or not taking a particular chemical (either legal or illegal drugs), if you wake up in the morning and the first thing that slips into your mind is to get higher, if your whole life is a mess because of your taking drugs, if people around you told you that you are acting abnormal, if you feel isolated by the others because of your decadent life, then it is high time to change something. This something is to check yourself into rehab to get over your addiction. You may choose to become an inpatient or an outpatient, depending on the degree of your addiction. You might need professionals to look after you not only during the period of treatment but also after the treatment, to ensure a successful rehabilitation.

Drug Rehab Programs

There are more types of rehab programs. To choose the best program rehab for you is crucial because your health, your life and even your death may depend on your choice. Here are some alternatives you should think of:

Free standing inpatient drug rehab program – short term program for less severe addictions;

Inpatient drug rehab program – rehabilitation unit – for severe mental and physical disabilities;

Inpatient drug rehab program – detoxification unit – in general this program takes place on an outpatient basis, but sometimes withdrawal from either drugs or alcohol presupposes extreme measures to prevent relapse. It is important to help patients to change their old habits, and this may happen only through a longer-term disruption from the environment where everything remembers them of the urge to return to the substance of their addiction;

Long term residential drug rehab program – is important for those who would relapse easily (youth, chronic addicts, patients with more than one diagnosis etc.).

Detoxification

Detoxification is the first level of a drug rehab. That means to withdraw yourself completely from drug dependency. This level has two stages a physical detox and a psychological detox. The physical detox is achieved by medical specialists who help you to get the substance out of your body, heal the damages the substance has done to you, and attenuate the effects of drug withdrawal over your body. The psychological detox or withdrawal is perhaps even more difficult, takes time, and its failure means certain relapse. You have to achieve counseling meetings which may be organized for individuals, for groups or even for families.

We must not forget that most addictions are based on the psychological problems of the individuals: solitude, unhappiness, hopelessness etc. However, sometimes the cause may be of physical origin: unbearable pain, physical disability etc. Unfortunately relapse is still a major problem for rehab programs, as statistics say, that 75-90 percent of drug addicts have relapsed in one year after the treatment was completed.

[ad_2]

Source by Michael Rad

Views: 0

January 6, 2020
Department Administrator Interference in the Doctor-Patient Relationship

[ad_1]

I contacted a resident doctor in Internal Medicine at a teaching hospital and asked if he would be interested in becoming my primary care physician (PCP). My note briefly described my background in health outcomes research and two of my prescription drugs. He wrote back that he would be honored to be my PCP, and came across as professional, humble, and sincere. A new doctor-patient relationship was formed, and I contacted my existing doctor’s office to arrange for my medical records to be transferred, which immediately informed that office that I must be dissatisfied and going to a new doctor. I also shared with the resident doctor confidential information from my medical records and a copy of one of my professional presentations at a health care conference.

A department administrator then contacted me to say the resident doctors are not available every day of the week for clinic and are not even here when they do their ICU rotation. Also, the Internal Medicine department protocol would not allow the resident doctor to write me a drug prescription for off label use. Finally, she was concerned that in the past I have ordered and correctly interpreted my own blood tests. The administrator’s attitude reflects one of the chief complaints Americans have with the health care system: the system is coming at them and requiring them to get health services in some predefined structure to which the facility is accustomed but which eliminate any potential for individualized treatment according to individual patients’ needs.

Apparently the administrator did not spend enough “careful consideration” to get her facts straight. I do not need to see my PCP daily or even monthly. My track record shows I saw my existing doctor once in a calendar year, and the prior doctor before him I saw once in a 15-month period. So the administrator based her decision on her own ignorance of the facts.

She also misstated facts concerning off-label prescriptions for drugs by resident doctors. One of the drugs we are talking about is Clomiphene. Both a resident doctor and an attending faculty physician at the teaching hospital advised me that they would be willing to write me (off-label) prescriptions for this drug, and the attending physician did indeed phone in a prescription for one of the drugs at my request. Similarly, the Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-GYN) advised me that their doctors, both resident and attending, have prescribed Clomiphene to patients. Therefore, residents in Family Medicine and OB-GYN (both primary care departments) can write prescriptions for Clomiphene, but “protocol” prevents residents in Internal Medicine (also primary care) from writing off-label prescriptions. What kind of a cockamamie rule is that? What, the residents in Internal Medicine are too dumb or too naive to understand off-label benefits of medicines?

Finally, I had planned for my resident PCP to order and interpret blood tests each time I visited him. The administrator could have learned that fact if she had bothered to call or write me before jumping to conclusions and interfering in my doctor-patient relationship. I strongly reject the Director’s paternalistic view of medicine in which she feels she has to protect resident doctors from patients who order or interpret their own blood tests. These resident doctors are young professionals who have completed their medical degrees; they don’t need paternalistic oversight from a department administrator telling them who they can and cannot invite to be patients.

Apparently, an overwhelming number of patients who visit this teaching hospital’s doctors want to be told what to do and how to feel. I am the exact opposite; I take personal responsibility for and manage my own health, which is strongly advocated under health care reform. Having a more equal, collaborative relationship with my PCP works for me, and that seems to be the true reason for the administrator’s interference. Studies show that medical malpractice rates drop with a non-paternalistic model of health care services. That fact of reducing litigation risks is pushing more health care systems across the country to migrate to a non-paternalistic model.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

I. Formation of Doctor-Patient Relationship

The first question to address is whether, based on this fact pattern, a doctor-patient relationship was formed. When I gave the Internal Medicine resident doctor confidential information on two off-label drugs that I take, that act would be analogous to a prospective client approaching a lawyer with facts about his case to see if the lawyer will assist him. Contacting a lawyer this way does not create an attorney-client relationship. However, the lawyer is under an ethical duty to protect the confidentiality of the information shared by the prospective client. Similarly, the resident doctor was under an ethical duty to keep the information I shared with him confidential.

When a lawyer responds to a prospective client, “I agree to take your case,” or “I will be your lawyer,” or words to that effect, then an attorney-client relationship is created, and the protection afforded to the client’s information rises to the level of constitutionally protected attorney-client privilege. In this case, when the resident doctor responded that he would be honored to be my PCP, we have offer and acceptance forming a contract. The offer-acceptance could be construed as my offering to be his patient, which he accepted, or his offer to be my PCP, which I accepted.

But offer and acceptance are only two of the three required elements to form a contract. The third essential element is exchange of consideration, expressed in Latin as the quid pro quo. In this case, there were several separate exchanges of consideration that complete the formation of a contract and thereby render it enforceable in a court of law. Consideration is defined as some act or some transfer of an item from one party to the other, for which the receiving party had no legal right to otherwise obtain that consideration. There is no requirement that the consideration have intrisinc value. For example, the transfer of a scrap piece of paper can constitute valid consideration that renders a contract binding and enforceable.

The initial disclosure of confidential information from my health history amounts to sufficient consideration. Second, the fact that both I and the doctor each began pursuing scheduling an appointment for me to see him is also consideration: neither of us had a prior legal right entitling us to that action by the other person. Third, when we continued to correspond after offer and acceptance, with additional information being shared back and forth, further consideration was exchanged. My sending the resident doctor a copy of one of my professional presentations was a fourth example of consideration. Finally, my request that my medical records be transferred to the resident doctor’s clinic constituted an obvious legal detriment based on reliance rendering the contract enforceable.

If a lawsuit were filed for enforcement of this contract, I am confident that the plaintiff would overcome any attempt to dismiss the lawsuit by the teaching hospital’s attorneys based on the absence of a contract. Defendant might attempt to argue that no contract could be formed, because the resident doctor is not licensed. According to the website http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/resident+physician, a “resident physician is a graduate and licensed physician receiving training in a specialty, usually in a hospital.” The resident’s licensing status would not prevent the formation of an enforceable contract, as we have in this fact pattern, for treatment in the supervised residents’ clinic.

In court, we would pose a series of questions: 1) Is the resident a graduate of a medical school? Yes! 2) Was our conversation focused on health care treatment? Yes! 3) Does the resident see other patients (whether supervised or unsupervised) in the resident clinic? Yes! 4) Are the resident’s services billed to the U.S. government and to private insurers as the services of a doctor (not a student or a doctor’s aide)? Yes! 5) Did we both use the term PCP in describing our relationship? Yes. 6) Did the resident undertake to assist me in obtaining a medical appointment to see him? Yes! With these answers, any court of law is going to recognize if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Therefore, the defendant’s argument on licensing will be viewed as a red herring and will fail. In a similar vein, courts have noted “it is axiomatic that a doctor-patient relationship may arise from, briefly exist, and be limited by the unique circumstances presented in a transfer situation.” Sterling v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 145 Md. App. 161 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002). It does not matter how long the doctor has been seeing patients or how brief the contact with any given patient, a doctor-patient relationship can be formed.

Selection of a PCP and other medical decisions are “core” private decisions. A fundamental tenet of privacy jurisprudence, as it has been applied to other types of personal matters, is that the individual most directly concerned is entitled to make and implement the protected decision autonomously and free from paternalistic government intrusion. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978) (decision to marry); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (decision to live with extended family members); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)(reproductive choice). I would argue that the constitutional right to privacy also protects autonomy in selecting a PCP among a wide choice of available doctors, selecting which medications I want prescribed, and choosing what lab tests I want to order myself to monitor my health.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Arkansas provided the best statement in American jurisprudence on the elevated status of the doctor-patient relationship. The court noted the relationship of doctor-patient is unique. “The loss of this relationship, even temporarily, causes irreparable damage to the doctor and the patient. There is no adequate remedy at law because the loss is a loss of a one-time opportunity.” Baptist Health v. Murphy, 362 Ark. 506 (Ark. 2005)

The court noted that the hospital had violated the Arkansas Department of Health rules and regulations for hospitals by failing to enforce policies that protected the doctor’s selection of patients and the patient’s choice of a physician. “We interpret this to mean that an otherwise qualified doctor must be granted access to his patient for the purpose of treating his patient, if that is what both the doctor and the patient want. Or, stated another way, a hospital cannot deny the services of a physician of the patient’s choice if the patient is already being seen by physicians at the hospital. Baptist Health v. Murphy, 362 Ark. 510-511 (Ark. 2005)

Based on reading Baptist Health, I will now forward a copy of this article to the state Department of Health to determine whether the teaching hospital violated any of my state’s regulations requiring Tennessee-licensed medical centers to have policies or bylaws that respect the patient’s right to select his own physician. If so, then the teaching hospital is violating those regulations.

II. Tennessee’s Tortious Interference Statute

Tenn. Code Ann. Â§ 47-50-109 is captioned, “Procurement of breach of contracts unlawful – Damages.” The administrator tortiously interfered in my doctor-patient relationship and prevented the resident doctor from performing his services under our contract. She therefore procured a breach of that contract. The administrator will argue that she was merely performing her duties, but that is no excuse for interfering in an existing doctor-patient relationship.

Although Tennessee jurisprudence does not have a case on point, courts across the country have taken a dim view and expressed disapproval of employer interference in the doctor-patient relationship. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “The ethical objection has been that intervention by employer… makes a tripartite matter of the doctor-patient relation. Since the contract doctor owes his employment and looks for his pay to the employer… rather than to the patient, he serves two masters with conflicting interests.” United States v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 329 (U.S. 1952).

[ad_2]

Source by Michael Guth

Views: 0

January 1, 2020
Possessiveness and Its Tragic Effects on Marriage

[ad_1]

Possessiveness in marriage is the desire to dominate or control every aspect of a spouse’s life. It may be with regard to friendships and relationships, jobs, hobbies or even programmes that can be watched on TV. It can lead to coercive control of the other person, making the victim afraid to oppose such behaviour or do what she wants to do. Possessiveness is commonly attributed to men. But there are many women who also like to keep their husbands in a vice-like grip. Probably the term ‘hen-pecked’ reflects this attitude.

A marriage was arranged between a smart and sprightly young pharmacist and an officer in a private bank. Though his features were distorted by Bell’s palsy, the parents thought nothing of it. He had a steady job with a good income and this ensured the security of their daughter. Within a few months, the girl turned into a sad, morose and distracted woman. Her husband was possessive to the extent that she had to give him an hour by hour account of her behaviour at work. He obstructed her progress professionally in different ways.

She could not join in any social activities with her colleagues. Three children followed in quick succession. The girl tolerated her husband’s behaviour for ten years. Then she absconded, leaving a note to say that unless her husband went in for psychiatric treatment for his abnormal behaviour, she would never come back again. One recalls the nursery rhyme of “Peter, Peter pumpkin eater who married a wife but couldn’t keep her. So he put her in a pumpkin shell, and there he kept her very well.”

But the girl broke through the shell hollering “Don’t you dare fence me in.”

Obviously, his facial deformity had given him a complex. He felt that unless he controlled his wife, she would be unfaithful or even leave him. He lost her not because of his looks but because of his behaviour. Timely psychiatric intervention finally brought about a reunion.

Signs of Possessiveness:

• Controlling a spouse so that she cows down and submits to his wishes.

• Unfounded suspicion of her activities, who she meets and with whom she talks. Not just her interaction with the opposite sex but even female friendships are suspect.

• Frequent phone calls to check on her activities.

• Socializing with friends is totally prohibited.

• Selfishness with no consideration for the likes or dislikes of his spouse.

• Spying on her movements through private detectives.

Reasons for Possessiveness:

1. Insecurity: Growing up in troubled families, deprivation of love in childhood, desertion by parents may have created a deep-seated insecurity. He therefore wants to hold on tightly to his ‘possession.’

2. Lack of trust in the spouse.

3. Inferiority Complex: A spouse may be better educated, and better qualified. She may be holding an important job and drawing a fabulous salary.

4. Borderline or acute personality disorders: Those who suffer from Schizophrenia or Bipolar disorders are prone to insecurity and possessiveness.

5. Egocentricity and selfishness. He cannot think beyond his own comforts.

6. Jealousy may be covert or open.

7. When love becomes an addiction, the love object becomes an obsession.

Effects on the victim:

– Frustration and resentment against the intimidating spouse.

– May retreat socially or vocationally.

– Self deprecation and loss of self esteem.

– Depression.

– Desire to escape from the spouse’s clutches.

How to prevent possessiveness:

Two most important elements that are required for a stable marriage are Love and Trust. This calls for a proper understanding of the different roles of spouses in a relationship. Individual differences must be respected. Though the marriage commitment does supercede some individual rights, it should not destroy all individual rights. Each one must have the freedom to develop personal skills and interests. Spouses should be allowed to have friends of the same gender.

M. Scott Peck calls the failure to appreciate the separateness of the other as narcissism.

“Love is separateness,” he says, “The genuine lover perceives the beloved as someone who has a totally separate identity. The genuine lover encourages this separateness and the unique individuality of the beloved.”

Each individual needs physical and mental space if they are to function to full capacity. One spouse cannot be an extension of the other. There should be time for friends and time for hobbies. However, there must be mutual agreement on how much time can be spent on separate activities. Time spent apart does not drive them away from each other. Each little absence from the beloved makes the heart grow fonder.

“Separateness enhances the marriage relationship,” says Scott Peck.

Generosity allows partners to take genuine delight in the success of their partners. They should encourage and mutually support each other.

How to overcome possessiveness:

• Discover the root of your insecurity. Do you have an inferiority complex about your background or your job?

• Are you afraid of losing ownership of your spouse? Communicate your feelings and fears to your partner and clear the matter. You’ll find that your fears are unfounded.

• For any relationship to survive and grow, there must be mutual trust and open communication.

• Overcome selfishness and give your spouse space to grow.

• Remember that possessiveness is a terrible form of abuse. It cannot be called love. “Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (I Cor. 13:6).

• Though marriage is a legal bond it does not mean enslavement of the spouse.

• Seek professional help and counseling.

Advice for the Victimized:

– Don’t expect others to fight your battles. Confront your spouse, and retrieve your distinct identity.

– Don’t tolerate abuse in any form. Better to end a destructive relationship.

Khalil Gibran author/ philosopher leaves us with this thought:

“Let there be spaces between your togetherness and let the winds of the heavens dance between you.”

Relationships take time to develop. They should be strengthened and nurtured by love and patience, commitment and trust. Possessiveness leads to manipulation through intimidation, coercion or even seduction, so that the offender can have his way. Someone compared manipulation to witchcraft. Be it a husband or a wife, one has no full authority to control another.

[ad_2]

Source by Eva Bell

Views: 0

December 27, 2019
In the Know: Health and Wellness Website Legalities

[ad_1]

When Health Consulting Businesses are Legally Responsible

One thing the internet is infamous for is being a source of advice for our health and well-being.

It doesn’t matter where we turn there is someone with a website telling us what to do to lose weight, slow down ageing or treat our illnesses.

We all do it. We aren’t feeling well so we type our symptoms into “Dr. Google” and voila, thousands of results telling us we have everything from a common cold to 6 months to live. We then take our results in hand to our doctor and tell him what we have.

Sadly, professionals in the health care industry, doctors, therapists, dieticians and nutritionists all have an everyday fight with misinformation that is provided on the internet.

If you are a blogger and have some experience with health-related issues, you may want to share this information with the world.

Or, you may be a professional with some education on certain health-related subjects and want to use that information to boost your business online.

Either way, you have to be very careful to follow the rules when it comes to providing health and wellness website information and advice to the masses.

Legal Responsibilities for Providing Health-Related Advice

So what are the legal issues for health consulting and coaching businesses when providing health-related information on a website?

There have been more than a few lawsuits in past years that have stemmed from sharing of health and diet advice with others on the internet.

In a recent lawsuit in North Carolina, a blogger changed his life and had experience with managing his Type 1 diabetes through use of the Paleo diet. He blogged about his efforts and when successful, he took his blogging a step further and began to share his meal plans and exercise regimens.

Eventually, he began providing one on one sessions to advise his readers in the ways of his experience for a fee.

In North Carolina, there is a misdemeanor law that makes it unlawful to practice dietetics or nutrition without a license. This blogger was charged with breaking this law and North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is now threatening him with prison.

Research All Governing Bodies’ Rules & Regulations

When providing health and wellness information online, you must ensure you are following all the rules.

Each governing body has separate rules on what information you can and cannot advise the public with regarding their health.

Canada and the United States both have specific federal laws and then each province and state also have their own separate laws.

If you are going to provide information, then you must look up those laws according to where you live and where you are doing business from. And to take it even a step further, you then you have to consider the audience you are targeting.

A good guideline to follow if you are providing information on your health-related website is to ask yourself, are you being specific to a particular personal health situation. The blogger in the North Carolina lawsuit was doing OK with providing his personal experiences with the Paleo diet.

His suggestions for exercise regimens or providing his personal diet plans on his health and nutrition website may even have been OK with the law but as soon as he started consulting one-on-one with individuals and providing advice, he was beyond sharing his personal experience and fell into the realm of providing medical expertise in an area where he was not legally certified to engage in.

Remember, giving your opinion about a health-related subject or telling about your specific experience is one thing but if you are claiming to be an expert in anything on your health and nutrition website, you could be held accountable by the boards who are responsible for governing the public education on the subject and run into legal issues.

You must not in any way claim or pose as something you are not if you are going to provide reliable health information.

If you are handing out health or wellness advice you need to be very clear about what your education and expertise are and also be very careful of the legal issues surrounding any advice you do give.

This is where working with a professional web development firm could help steer you in the right direction and ensure you are not posting anything that could cause you legal problems while operating your business. Consulting a lawyer who is well versed in these matters would also be very prudent.

[ad_2]

Source by Susan Friesen

Views: 0

December 24, 2019
I’m Angry That He Won’t Marry Me And This Is Hurting Our Relationship: Tips That Might Help

[ad_1]

I sometimes hear from women who, after a set amount of time, begin to feel a little annoyance, frustration, anger, or resentment that they are not getting engaged or married. And, as time goes by these negative feelings build so that it begins to hurt the relationship. The great irony of all of this is that this whole process can actually make a marriage or engagement less likely so that it is a vicious cycle.

I heard from a woman who said: “I’ve been with my boyfriend for five years. I hate calling him that, my boyfriend. We’re in our late twenties and that’s too old to be calling someone your boyfriend. At this point, we have lived together for two and a half years. He knows that I want to get married, but he’s dragging his feet. We own our apartment together, but other than this, there’s nothing legally binding us together. I worry that if something happened to either of us, the other wouldn’t have any legal standing to make decisions. I’m angry that he has put me in this position. I feel like he thinks that I’m good enough to live with but not good enough to marry. And I find myself short tempered and sarcastic with him because of my anger. At this rate, I feel like this whole process is going to hurt our relationship. I can’t seem to control my feelings. And I feel that I have a right to be angry. What can I do?” I will try to address these concerns in the following article.

Understand That If Left Unchecked, This Cycle Really Can Harm Or Even Destroy Your Relationship: Many couples get caught in this cycle and they just sort of become so used to it that they start to envision that it is always going to be this way. They figure that no one is going to blink first so that they will sort of always be at a stand still, waiting to see who is going to make the first move. That’s why they often don’t even see the end of their relationship coming. This cycle has ended many relationships precisely because people begin to believe that nothing is ever going to change. And eventually, one or both of the parties decides that they just don’t want to live this way anymore.

Consider Agreeing To Shelf The Issue And Then To Come Back To It At An Agreed Upon Time: Here’s what you have to understand. It’s possible that eventually, this issue will become a central problem in your relationship. And, when this happens, the whole dynamics of your relationship changes and this change is not for the better. It seems as if everything always come back to this one thing and you can’t seem to regain your footing or to move forward.

It’s my experience and observation that it is better for you to put this issue on the shelf, for just a little while, if you find that it is deteriorating your relationship. Sometimes, when I explain this to folks, they think that I am telling them to give up or to just accept that he doesn’t want to marry you. This isn’t what I am implying at all. I am only saying that if you agree to shelf it and then to reevaluate, you gain a couple of things. First, you limit the damage to your relationship. In order for him to commit to you, he needs to have the peace of mind that the relationship is worthy of that commitment. The chances of this happening are less if you just can’t move past your differences of opinion on this topic.

Second, if you can get him to agree to revisit this topic later, then he’s committed to thinking very seriously about committing at a later point in time. As far as I’m concerned, that is a huge gain and big bonus. Because as of right now, you don’t have that. And when you shelf the issue, you place your focus back on your relationship. The tension wanes and things can be good between you again. This way, when you two do discuss this again at that set time, your relationship will hopefully have recovered to the point where he is comfortable committing. If he is not, then it may be time to dig a little deeper to determine why he isn’t comfortable committing.

[ad_2]

Source by Mari Deene

Views: 0

December 22, 2019
Should Gays Be Allowed to Marry?

[ad_1]

Marriage is more than a piece of paper. It confers numerous benefits, such as health, disability and life insurance, pension funds and tax refunds for spouses. Many gay couples desire to marry and partake in these benefits but have been denied this right because of their sexuality and that is not fair. According to some individuals, America is the greatest country in the world. It is supposedly filled with opportunities for everyone, not just financially but an opportunity to be free from judgement. This is not true. Everyday, millions of people are denied a right many take for granted. Gay couples in most states cannot marry because it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex and that is not fair.

Marriage is a legal commitment between two consenting adults. It is about sharing, love, trust, and legal status. Two adults who make this private personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because their sexual orientation. It is illegal to discriminate against gays seeking employment, education or housing. Gays keep communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff hospitals, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples the right to legally marry takes away their legal rights in receiving employee benefits, government benefits, and other benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

A person's sexuality should not be an obstacle to whether he or she wants to marry someone. A gay person has the same needs and desires as a heterosexual individual. The only difference is the way he or she has sex. If two individuals fall in love and wants the same economic advantages that marriage offers heterosexual couples, they should not be denied that right based on their sexuality.

Although American society denies the right to marriage to gays, it glorifies heterosexuals who make a mockery out of marriage by marrying and divorcing a succession of partners. This practice is called "Serial Monogamy" and it is sickening and very hypocritical of American society to stand judgment on gays for their lifestyles but sanctions heterosexuals who do not have good judgment or morals. Most people who are opposed to gay marriage often bring up the Bible, saying that the Bible does not condone the gay lifestyle and that marriage is strictly between a man and woman.

However, these same individuals are often involved in extra-marital affairs, are cohabitating without the benefit of marriage or are gay themselves, hiding behind pious words of morality. Gays are just like anyone else and they deserve to partake in the economic advantages that marriage has to offer. Instead of denying the right to marriage to gays, American society should concentrate on fixing the widening economic gap between the wealthy and the poor and figuring out why American society is the laughing stock of the world.

[ad_2]

Source by Kathy Henry

Views: 0

October 9, 2019
A Substantive Due Process Challenge to the War on Drugs

[ad_1]

Substantive Due Process Analysis of the Incarceration of Drug Offenders

A. Framework

In Washington v. Glucksberg, Chief Justice Rehnquist described the framework for substantive due process analysis:

Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Second, we have required in substantive-due-process cases a “careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. Our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial “guideposts for responsible decisionmaking,” that direct and restrain our exposition of the Due Process Clause. As we stated recently in Flores, the Fourteenth Amendment “forbids the government to infringe . . . ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”

Applying this method, one must first examine freedom from incarceration to determine if it is a fundamental right. If so, government policies that require the incarceration of offenders, including drug offenders, must serve compelling interests and be narrowly tailored to achieve them. This article assumes for the sake of argument that drug problems give rise to compelling state interests. It then reviews the interests asserted by the government in its pursuit of its drug war policies and the results of those policies to determine whether the policy of incarcerating drug offenders is narrowly tailored to those asserted interests.

B. The Fundamental Liberty Interest: Freedom from Incarceration

Federal and state laws subject drug offenders to incarceration. Incarceration is a tremendous deprivation of liberty that triggers the protections of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has recognized this right on a number of occasions. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS for example, the court held:

[I]t is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf–through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty–which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause . . . .

Perhaps the earliest explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right under substantive due process came in Allgeyer:

The ‘liberty’ mentioned in [the fourteenth] amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.

An 1891 law review article noted that Blackstone described “freedom from restraint of the person” as “perhaps the most important of all civil rights,” and that Lord Coke felt “the liberty of a man’s person is more precious to him than everything else that is mentioned [in the Magna Charta].” Blackstone states that “the rights of all mankind . . . may be reduced to three principal or primary articles; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property.” Indeed, the original Latin in the Magna Charta’s “law of the land” clause uses the term “imprisonetur.”

No court has invalidated a criminal statute through the application of substantive due process analysis to the fundamental right of freedom from incarceration. At the same time, no court has ruled to the contrary. The Supreme Court avoided the question in Reno v. Flores:

The “freedom from physical restraint” invoked by respondents is not at issue in this case. Surely not in the sense of shackles, chains, or barred cells, given the Juvenile Care Agreement. Nor even in the sense of a right to come and go at will, since, as we have said elsewhere, “juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody,” and where the custody of the parent or legal guardian fails, the government may (indeed, we have said must) either exercise custody itself or appoint someone else to do so.

This analysis would not apply to adult drug offenders. The Fourth Circuit also avoided addressing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right in Hawkins v. Freeman:

Hawkins’s rhetorical reference to the right as being “freedom from unjust incarceration,” and that of amicus, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, as the “right to be free from arbitrary incarceration,” are issue-begging generalizations that cannot serve the inquiry. A properly precise description can, however, be found in the facts and legal authorities relied upon by Hawkins in support of his claim. From these, we deduce that the precise right asserted is that of a prisoner to remain free on erroneously granted parole so long as he did not contribute to or know of the error and has for an appreciable time remained on good behavior to the point that his expectations for continued freedom from incarceration have “crystallized.”

Hawkins is distinguishable because it deals with an inmate whose parole was revoked. In any event, the casual dismissal as an “issue-begging generalization” flies in the face of nearly 800 years of common law tradition and over a century of Supreme Court decisions recognizing freedom from incarceration as a fundamental right. Indeed the language of the Supreme Court’s Ingraham decision supports the application of substantive due process proposed in this paper:

While the contours of this historic liberty interest in the context of our federal system of government have not been defined precisely, they always have been thought to encompass freedom from bodily restraint and punishment. It is fundamental that the state cannot hold and physically punish an individual except in accordance with due process of law.

The Court also stressed this fundamental liberty interest in Foucha v. Louisiana, a case involving the confinement of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity:

Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action. “It is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” We have always been careful not to “minimize the importance and fundamental nature” of the individual’s right to liberty.

While the Foucha Court indicated that “a State may imprison convicted criminals for the purposes of deterrence and retribution,” the remark was dicta and did not involve any discussion of substantive limits on the police power. In Meachum v. Fano the Court made a similar remark in the context of a case dealing with prison conditions: “[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him.” Again there was no discussion of substantive limits on the police power. Indeed the previous sentence noted: “The Due Process Clause by its own force forbids the State from convicting any person of crime and depriving him of his liberty without complying fully with the requirements of the Clause.”

Recently in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court noted:

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the Government to “depriv[e]” any “person … of … liberty … without due process of law.” Freedom from imprisonment–from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint–lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.

Freedom from incarceration is not just a fundamental right. It is the one of the most fundamental of rights.

C. Identifying the State’s Interests

Governmental drug policy interests identified in federal statutes include “demand reduction,” “supply reduction,” and “reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand for illegal drugs.”

Federal law sets specific goals for the National Drug Control Strategy. These include:

“Reduction of unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the population”;

“Reduction of adolescent unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the adolescent population”;

“Reduction of the availability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine”;

“Reduction of the respective nationwide average street purity levels for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine”; and

“Reduction of drug-related crime.”

Goals are also set forth with regard to drug-related crime:

(i) reduction of State and Federal unlawful drug trafficking and distribution; (ii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed by persons under the influence of unlawful drugs; (iii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining unlawful drugs or obtaining property that is intended to be used for the purchase of unlawful drugs; and (iv) reduction of drug-related emergency room incidents . . . .

D. Defining “Narrow Tailoring” in the Context of Substantive Due Process

Assuming that the governmental interests are compelling, we must determine whether the incarceration of drug offenders is narrowly tailored to achieving them. The government must show that its policy passes strict scrutiny. The concept of narrow tailoring is not well defined in the context of substantive due process, but has been fairly well defined in regard to the First Amendment and Equal Protection. Equal Protection cases also arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education the Supreme Court held: “Under strict scrutiny the means chosen to accomplish the State’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.” In a footnote, the Court described narrow tailoring in even further detail:

The term “narrowly tailored,” so frequently used in our cases, has acquired a secondary meaning. More specifically, as commentators have indicated, the term may be used to require consideration of whether lawful alternative and less restrictive means could have been used. Or, as Professor Ely has noted, the classification at issue must “fit” with greater precision than any alternative means. “[Courts] should give particularly intense scrutiny to whether a nonracial approach or a more narrowly-tailored racial classification could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense.”

It is important to note here that a policy that does not advance the government’s interests violates substantive due process regardless of how it compares with the alternatives. If it does not accomplish its purpose, logic dictates it cannot be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish its purpose.

E. Advancing Governmental Interests

Congress has identified certain tools for assessing the national drug control strategy. The National Household Survey is the measure for “unlawful drug use.” Similarly, “adolescent unlawful drug use” is to be measured “by the Monitoring the Future Survey of the University of Michigan or the National PRIDE Survey conducted by the National Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education.” On these measures, the goals are not being reached.

The measure of adolescent drug use that was specifically identified by Congress, illicit drug use in the past 30 days, worsened in 2001. More than 25% of US twelfth graders reported using illicit drugs in the past 30 days. That is nearly double the figure for 1992 and more than eight times the stated goal of 3%. Over 40% of 12th graders tried an illicit drug in the past year.

The PRIDE Survey and National Household Survey show similar results.

The drug war has also failed in its other goals. The Monitoring the Future Survey tracks how twelfth graders perceive the availability of drugs. Reducing availability is an explicit goal of the drug war. The perceived availability of marijuana in 2001 was slightly higher than in 1975. The figures for harder drugs are more disturbing. From 1975 to 1986, roughly 20% of twelfth graders said heroin was easy to get. That number shot up in the late 1980s and has remained consistently higher than 30%. Cocaine remains widely available to our youth, with nearly 50% of twelfth graders saying it is easy to get. The survey began measuring the availability of ecstasy in 1989, when only 22% of twelfth graders felt it was easy to get. In 2001, that number went over 61%, having jumped from 51% the year before.

Drug war policies are not achieving the stated drug war goals. They cannot be “specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish their purpose” because they are not accomplishing their purpose. Drug use has not been reduced in any significant way, and levels of drug use are far above the stated goals. Our children have easy access to drugs. We can’t even keep drugs out of jails. The drug war and the incarceration of drug offenders have also failed to achieve secondary goals regarding supply, demand, purity, drug-related health problems and drug-related crime. The policy of incarcerating drug offenders does not “directly advance[] the governmental interest asserted.” The War on Drugs is not working.

F. Alternative Means

Even if a court is persuaded that incarceration advances the government’s interests, the government must also show that its policy choice fits better than the alternatives. Critics of the drug war encompass a broad spectrum of backgrounds, and the range of “solutions” is just as wide. Libertarians and others favor outright legalization of drugs. The legalization of marijuana is a somewhat popular variation of overall legalization, and there are other variations such as the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and decriminalization of drugs or marijuana. Another leading approach, known as harm reduction, looks at drugs from a public health perspective.

The effectiveness of some of these alternatives is difficult to assess. Even so, certain comparisons can be made. Advocates of treatment point to studies showing that treatment is much more effective than incarceration. Spencer notes:

The recidivism rate for first time Dade County drug offenders was sixty percent, but for those who successfully completed the Dade County Drug Court treatment programs, the recidivism rate reported by Dade County officials was only seven percent. Drug court treatment programs are also cost effective. It costs Florida only $2,000 to put a drug offender through a drug court program, as compared to $17,000 per drug offender for incarceration. As a result, other drug court programs are being established throughout the country.

Similarly, a Rand study found treatment to be seven times more cost-effective than current supply-control policy in reducing cocaine consumption.

G. The Incarceration of Drug Offenders is Not Narrowly Tailored

Incarceration involves a far greater infringement of fundamental rights than alternatives which are both more effective and less intrusive. The incarceration of offenders is not advancing the state’s asserted interests. The drug war is not narrowly tailored, failing the Supreme Court’s “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” as described by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The laws requiring the incarceration of drug offenders are therefore unconstitutional, if substantive due process analysis is applied.

IV. CONCLUSION

It is true that the approach suggested in this paper would limit the police power. Constitutional protection of individual rights exists for that very purpose. We face coercive government action, carried out in a corrupt and racist manner, with military and paramilitary assaults on our homes, leading to mass incarceration and innocent deaths. We can never forget the tyranny of a government unrestrained by an independent judiciary. Our courts must end the War on Drugs.

For the full article, with endnotes, see: http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf

[ad_2]

Source by Warren Redlich

Views: 0

October 8, 2019
Is Equitable Distribution of Marital and Non-Marital Assets the Same As Equal Distribution?

[ad_1]

No, equitable distribution of marital and non-marital assets is not the same as equal distribution. Equal distribution states, known as community property states include California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Washington, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Texas, Wisconsin, and by agreement of both parties, Alaska. All other states distribute marital assets using the term "equitable" which, in legal terms, means "fair" distribution of assets. (Debts are also termed marital and non-marital and will be distributed equally or equitably according to the parties state of residence). The actual fairness of the distribution will depend on if a couple can negotiate their own equitable distribution through the mediation process, required in Florida, for example, or if a judge must use his or her interpretation of what will be fair for each party, particularly when looking into the past for who contributed what to the marriage and into the future for how each party will continue to manage as a single, now responsible for their own welfare.

Non-marital assets include all property, real and otherwise which a party obtained before the marriage took place. For example property such as a home, high-end furniture or electronics, valuable jewelry, and / or a vehicle, if completely paid for by a party prior to his or her marriage would be termed non-marital and be retained by that party. Also property real or otherwise, if sold during the marriage could provide profit belonging to the owning party to be used at his or her discretion. An inheritance or specific gift can also be termed non-marital. Substantial proof of the pre-marital ownership or post-marital acquisition of all non-marital assets will be required before the actual acceptance of an asset as non-marital.

Marital assets are all property and items accumulated and / or purchased during the marriage. Monies earned during the marriage are also looked at to determine what each party has contributed to the welfare of the union. It is important to understand that, for example, a woman or man who has stayed home to care for home and children will have their years of non-monetary work be given a value which will compute into dollars when figuring the actual equitable distribution. The lifestyle of the family and how each party will be able to continue following the final judgment will also be a factor when a judge decides the final distribution. Remember, "fair" is the keyword is making an equitable distribution. Length of the marriage, the parties economic situation, contributions to the education or career or the other party, the need to keep an asset such as a business or family heirloom, severe waste of assets during 2 years prior to filing, and the wisdom of retaining the marital home, particularly if minor children are involved are all considerations when determining equitable distribution. A complete list of considerations for equitable distribution of marital assets and debts in the state of Florida can be found in Florida Statute 61.075.

As can be easily seen, the whole issue of determining marital versus non-marital and equitable distribution involve a whole maze of considerations. An experienced legal professional will be able to help his or her client sort out the many in and outs, as well as help collect the necessary proofs needed. And finally, if you are serious about a dissolution of your marriage, try to the best of your ability to work out your final agreement during your meditation when you and your spouse can determine the equitable distribution for yourselves. A lot of feelings can be hurt when a judge is the one to tell you what you can and cannot keep. Finally, if the equitable distribution decided on during mediation is extremely one-sided a judge can refuse to sign the final order, so be fair, "equitable" and all will benefit.

[ad_2]

Source by Grant J Gisondo

Views: 0

October 8, 2019
Don’t Ignore These Telltale Signs of Drug Abuse in Teens
[ad_1]

Drug abuse has for a long been a problem among teenagers with peer pressure as the key factor driving it. Despite being well documented, parents and caregivers tend to ignore the apparent symptoms of drug abuse in the growing children. The early instances of drug abuse evoke far greater health consequences in this age group than in any other group.

One of the reasons behind the increase in the severity of repercussions of drug abuse is that during adolescence both body and mind are still in the process of development. Apart from the fact that drugs can alter brain chemistry and structure, illicit drug use among teenagers can increase vulnerability to motor crashes and instigate risky sexual behavior. Additionally, drug abuse increases suicidal tendencies, assaults, symptoms of mental health conditions and dropout rate at schools.

Illicit drug use also entails legal and social consequences, such as increase in incidents of violence, criminal activities and neglect, as well as a higher likelihood of abusing drugs in later life. In addition, pregnant teenage girls who continue engaging in drugs are at risk of harming the fetus and themselves in many ways.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Nurturing and caring for a teenager is no easy task. The bumpy journey of growth that includes a number of transitional phases, ranging from hitting puberty to adolescence, yearning for dependence to realizing independence, “I love you” to “I hate you,” to confronting life without a safety net to making sense of it all, can mislead parents, guardians and caregivers, especially when their children are on drugs.

Even in the absence of any evidence, it is important that parents who feel that something is wrong with their children trust their hunch and take significant remedial actions, such as talking to their children or seeking professional help.

One of the most practical tools to address the problem of drug abuse among teenagers is communication. Usually, drug-using teenagers develop traits that assist them in concealing their growing addiction-related practices.

They also spend their time incommunicado. When a teenager displays odd behavioral patterns, such as not being themselves after a social event, being vague about the details of the movie watched, getting home beyond curfew, avoiding interaction or getting close to their parents, it is best to investigate to safeguard their health and life.

Some of the below-mentioned warning signs specified by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) can assist parents in keeping a check on their adolescent children:
- A change in peer group
- Carelessness with grooming
- Poor academic performance
- Increased absenteeism
- Loss of interest in favorite activities
- Changes in eating or sleeping habits
- Deteriorating relationships with family members and friends
Although the 2016 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of drug use among American teenagers suggests decline in the past year use of illicit drugs, except marijuana, alcohol and drug use amidst teenagers is a major public concern. In addition, there is substantial evidence that drug use in early years increases the likelihood of a teenager developing substance use disorder and the symptoms of mental health conditions in their adulthood. However, early intervention is known to reduce and treat these conditions more successfully compared to those who let the abuse linger or get treated late.

Pull the plug on drugs

The earliest warning signs of drug abuse among teenagers are changes in their behavior and mannerism. Usually, addressing a teenager’s drug abuse habits can be an unpleasant ordeal, which is at times riddled with extreme opposition from the patient.

Therefore, it is important that parents communicate with their adolescent children about the life-threatening consequences of drug abuse. They should also discuss about the ways that can assist in overcoming the challenge of drug abuse. They can guide their children in the right direction through their love and care.

[ad_2]

Source by Courtney Whetstone

Views: 0
October 8, 2019