Ford Vs Wainwright Case Analysis

The court ruled in favor of Perry and let him remain on death row until his mental competency could be restored without the aid of medication. While it is almost certain that Perry was mentally compromised when he committed the crime, since he did not plead insanity and did not receive a mitigated sentence because of it, I will assume the court was correct in treating as if he lost his competency while on death row. Therefore, while this solution preserves justice for Perry, what about the other death row inmates, or the Perry’s five victims? A death row inmate who committed a crime comparable to Perry’s is executed because he did not develop a mental illness. What do you say to him? “Sorry, but that Perry guy has become insane, he does not …show more content…
Since the medical definition of justice does not include the moral rightness clause, it only concerns itself with making sure every party’s is treated in the most fair manner possible. This is exactly what the alteration of the Ford v. Wainwright decision is trying to accomplish, equal treatment for all inmates on death row. Medical ethics does not confine itself to just the pursuit of justice in its practice, it also centers itself around autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Currently a physician could potentially be forced to compromise their promise to uphold the principles of autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence, and therefore break Hippocratic Oath in order to medicate inmates to make them competent enough for execution. A physician is not violating a patient autonomy if he or she is forcibly medicating an inmate because they were not mentally competent. However, if the inmate regained their competency, they would have medical autonomy. If the court forced the physician to continue to medicate the inmate against their will, that physician would be breaking their oath to protect the patient 's