McFall v. Shimp
Curran v. Bosze
Jennifer Ganesh
Law Values and Public Policy
STS 2400
McFall v. Shimp
 Plaintiff- McFall needs a transplant
 Defendant- Shimp has high compatibility rating
 Shimp refuses to go through with procedure
 McFall files an injunction against Shimp
Plaintiff’s Case
 Plaintiff’s Defense- King Edward I. St.
Westminster 2, 13 Ed., I, c 24
 This Court derives its power from this statute
because this court is a successor of the English
Courts of Chancery
Defendant’s Case
-
Common law
no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action
to save another human being
Judgment
 “For
our law to compel the defendant
to submit to an intrusion of his body
would change every concept and
principle upon which our society is
founded. To do so would defeat the
sanctity of the individual.....”
Appeals
 Appealed and went to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court
 S.C. agreed with lower court’s decision
 This case set precedent for many other casesAngela Carder Story
Curran v. Bosze
 Jean Pierre- 12 year old with rare form of
leukemia
 2 younger siblings that might be a match for a
bone marrow transplant
 Mother of the twins refuse to grant permission for
testing
Plaintiff’s Defense
 Best Interest Standard- what is the best choice
for the minors?
 Substituted Judgment- what would the children
do if they were not minors?
Defendant’s Defense

Curran believes that the tests and actual
donation may harm the twins both physically and
emotionally
 Risks outweighs the benefits
Judgment
 Petition denied
 No concrete evidence that the twins would want
to go through with the bone marrow transplant
Appeal
 Went to Illinois Supreme Court
 Decision of Circuit Court was upheld
Questions? Comments?
References
 http://imc.gsm.com/demos/dddemo/consult/statel
aw/cases_il.htm
 http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall.htm
l
 http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/June99/016
1.html
 http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii910326.html
 http://www.nocirc.org/articles/prescott3.html