The Case of Scott Starson Essay Example

program for treatment. However, even though his doctors proposed that he is in need of treatment, he denied it (Machlin, 2005). His refusal to be medically treated became very controversial due to the fact that Starson was known to be mentally ill. Which such situation at hand, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the professor should be given medication.

However, it was stated that, “an Ontario Board that determines the capacity of mentally ill people overstepped it powers when it ordered that Scott Starson be treated without his consent” (Makin, 2003, n. p. ). Even with such statement, the court stated that the board was only expressing their own viewpoint of what is truly the best for Starson. Therefore, the court pronounced that the extraordinary, intelligent professor was evidently conscious of his decision when he declined the proposal for his mental treatment (Makin, 2003). Reflection and Ethical Perspectives

The situation of Scott Starson is one case which demands critical analysis because his refusal for medication would affect various groups in the society. First and foremost, the groups who advocate the rights of mentally ill persons would respond sensitively on the matter. Given that Starson decided to not take any medication, advocates of such rights would fully support his decisions. Moreover, the Canadian Supreme Courts will be judged as inconsiderate of the right to refuse anything that the individual does not think will benefit his or her welfare.

In the Canadian Laws and Charter of Right and Freedom, it states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in

particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1984). Due to these factors in the law of Canada, it is evident that a person must still be respected no matter what condition he or she could be experiencing during the moment.

In addition, the ethical problem in the case of Starson would be the consideration of the safety of many people in the society. Although the law is presenting a more individualistic view of rights, the society must also be considered as a very important entity in the consequences of the situation. In the viewpoint of an individual (Starson), his or her rights and perspective are banished due to the ruling of the court. While the courts approved his decision to refuse medications, the medical community believed that Starson was able to state his concern of not having medication due to his desire to stay to his current state.

Although many will find him abnormal, he believes himself as someone who can do better things without his medication. After the courts decided that it would respect Starson’s decision about not taking medication, there had been long discussions and debates regarding his situation. During his stay in the Center of Addition and Mental Health, the doctors noticed that he was rejecting the food which had been given to him. Starson thought that the doctors and nurses were giving him food that would slowly make him die. Thus, he was starving himself to prevent himself from becoming a victim of the so-called “food poisoning.

Such accusation of Starson was denied by the doctors

and nurses of the said hospital; however, the administrators stated that such behavior was caused by paranoia which is part of the mental problem that he is going through. In conclusion, science and law are different subjects that are very hard to compare and level. Due to ethical dilemmas such as what should or should not be done on account of various consequences that might happen if the court would approve of Starson’s release the case had become more complicated for the viewers as well as the entities involved.

Psychiatric doctors of Professor Starson tried to convince the courts to deny the request of their patient through their appeal (Starson v. Swayze, 2003). However, the appeal was not approved due to the lack of evidence (Brooks, O’Reily & Gray, 2003). Because of this, the concept of law, science, as well as ethics, is at hand. Currently, the Professor is still staying with the Royal Ottawa Hospital and is in need of close observation due to his mental illness.