Privacy Rights of Individuals Essays

Privacy Rights of Individuals Essays Privacy Rights of Individuals Essay Privacy Rights of Individuals Essay Privacy can be defined in many ways, depending on one’s perspective, including the right to be left alone, free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life. Although everyone agrees that this is an important right that should be protected by governmental laws, the extent of one’s right to privacy has often been a matter of debate in the court system of the United States. There is vast disagreement concerning how far the government should go to protect an individual’s right to privacy. The United States is a large melting pot of cultures, races and ideas, which often lead to a differing of opinions in term of what should be the norm due to ethical and moral difference between individuals. This paper will present court cases that deal with the privacy rights of individuals as they relate to the areas of homosexuality, drug testing, birth control and the right to die. An individual’s right to sexual privacy, including homosexuality, is an issue that has been brought before the courts repeatedly. Bowers v. Hardwick is a landmark case fought in 1986 that tested the boundaries of sexual rights. Hardwick was charged with committing consensual sodomy in the privacy of his bedroom with another adult male. He had violated the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick brought a suit in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of a law that criminalized a sexual act between consenting adults. The court held that the United States Constitution does not grant the fundamental right to homosexuals to commit sodomy, even in the privacy of their homes. They concluded that the Georgia statute was, in fact, constitutional. This decision was later reversed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Hardwick’s homosexual practices were private and beyond the jurisdiction of the state. The Georgia statute was, therefore, unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights granted by the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) is a more recent case concerning homosexual privacy issues. Dale, an assistant scoutmaster in New Jersey, was fired when the Boy Scouts learned that he was a homosexual and gay rights advocate. The Boy Scouts organization asserted that homosexuality was inconsistent with the values that they represent. Dale filed a suit in New Jersey Superior Court, claiming that the state statute that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation was violated. After much deliberation, the court sided with the Boy Scouts insisting that the First Amendment guaranteed private organizations the right to define their mission and exclude members that significantly affect their ability to carry out their purpose. Although homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, it is inconsistent with the values taught by the Boy Scouts of America. Therefore, the intrusion into a private group’s personal affairs by forcing it to accept members was ruled unconstitutional. Drug testing is another issue that has been fiercely debated in the courts. With the increase of illegal drug use across the United States, many institutions have tried to institute a policy of random testing in order to combat the problem. Opponents of this policy claim that these random drug tests are an invasion of privacy rights and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. A group of parents challenged the Oklahoma school district’s policy of random drug testing in front of the Supreme Court. The school district established a policy of random urine tests for students who want to join the marching band, academic team or any competitive extracurricular activity (Biscupic, 2002). In previous cases, the court had ruled that general urine testing required a warrant or some evidence of drug use. However, in a school setting, there is a lower expectation to privacy and in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that drug testing for student athletes did not violate their privacy rights, since these students were the most at risk and could choose whether or not to participate in sporting activities. They also stated that the Fourth Amendment does not protect all expectations of privacy, only those recognized by the society as legitimate. In the Oklahoma case, however, the court distinguished competitive athletics from other extracurricular activities and ruled that schools cannot force students to give urine samples unless there is evidence of drug use. As far as the workplace is concerned, most states sanction but do not regulate drug testing. The ACLU has argued that workplace drug testing violates privacy rights and reveals other conditions such as pregnancy or genetic predispositions to disease, a clear violation of those rights. In cases such as Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association and Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of employers to conduct routine drug testing of employees in â€Å"safety-sensitive† positions where public safety is an issue, such as transportation employees and candidates for office. The right to privacy in matters of sexuality and contraception was first discussed in the landmark case of Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. At this time it was illegal to disseminate material regarding birth control. Griswold, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, was charged with giving information, instruction and medical advice to married couples regarding pregnancy prevention. The Court decided that Connecticut’s birth-control law infringes upon the right of marital privacy and is unconstitutional. It also violates the First Amendment right that protects the freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. In a later case Baird v. Eisenstandt, the Supreme Court overturned the statutes of 26 states that denied unmarried people the right to birth control devices and information (Baird, 1997). They based this decision on the individual’s right to privacy in their private affairs including the decision whether or not to have children. In recent years, the issue of privacy rights has included the right to control one’s body including the right to die. A recent controversy exists over assisted suicide and a person’s decision to terminate his own life. The United States Supreme Court has established that, to some extent, an individual does have a limited right to die. The Court does cite the previously mentioned case of Griswold v. Connecticut, and even Roe v. Wade stating that if the right to privacy is broad enough to include a woman’ decision to terminate her pregnancy, it also provides a basis for the right to die (Powell, J. Cowen, A. , 1994). Of course, cases involving the right to die are usually extremely complicated and the court must consider many issues including the competency of the individual and the steps necessary for the cessation of life. In the case of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), four physicians who treat terminally ill patients wanted to end the law that banned assisted suicide in the state of Washington. Similarly, in Vacco v. Quills (1997), New York doctors argued for the right to prescribe lethal medication to mentally competent patients who are terminally ill and suffering great pain. In both cases, the Supreme Court denied the constitutionality of the right to die by assisted suicide and, instead, left it to individual state legislatures to examine on a case-by-case basis. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the court denied the right of the parents to withhold nutrition and hydration to their incompetent daughter in a vegetative state. They concluded that such choices couldn’t be made in the absence of a living will or clear evidence of the patient’s wishes. Although the Court recognizes the right to die at a limited level, they are aware of the complexity of the issue and do not wish to make general assertions concerning this matter. They do uphold that although it is a crime to assist suicide, an individual does have the right to refuse medical treatment to prolong his life. This decision, however, should be documented in the form of a living will, or a Do Not Resuscitate Order. References Baird, B. (1997). The people versus Bill Baird: struggling for your rights to privacy. Humanist, 57(2), 39-40. Biscupic, J. (March, 2002). Drug-testing case generates sparks. USA Today, pp. 2a. (EBSCO Document Reproduction Services No. J0E030212649602). Powell, J. , Cohen, A. (1994). The right to die. Issues in Law and Medicine, 10(2), 169-183. Supreme Court Collection. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. [On-line] available at megalaw. com (April 18, 2002). Ibid. Bowers v. Hardwick. Ibid. Chandler v. Miller. Ibid. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Ibid. Griswold v. Connecticut. Ibid. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association. Ibid. Veronica School District v. Acton. Ibid. Vacco v. Quills. Ibid. Washington v. Glucksberg. Van Biema, D. , Lafferty, E. (1997, January). Is there a right to die? Time Canada, 149 (2), 42-44.