Olmstead v. L. C.: The Olmstead Decision

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The fundamental issues that formed the basis of this case from the point of view of the plaintiffs

According to Olmstead v. L. C., (1999) two women Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson who resided in Georgia categorized this case through their lawyer Jamieson Susan, an Atlanta authorized aid attorney. This was a result of the state’s failure to liberate them from the hospital to their residence so that they would bond with the community.

This complaint sought to have the state of Georgia discharge them from the two treatment homes. One of the elementary issues that formed the basis of this case as viewed by the two women through their lawyer was the fact that baseless confinement of individuals with disabilities in hospitals. This was a form of prejudice, at the same time; it desecrated ‘the Americans with Disability Act’ (ADA) (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999).

On this basis, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson with the aid of their lawyer argued that they had been recommended to exit the health facility, but the state refused to let them go; thus, the state was acting against the ADA. This is by discriminating against them as they were denied the possibility of accessing community-based treatment.

The other fundamental issue that formed the basis of this case was the fact that when the state treatment professionals have recommended the placement of patients with a disability into community-based services, and the patient does not oppose this, the state was thus entitled to comply with this directive while taking in to account the available resources and the requirements of the other patients being treated by the state.

Here, the plaintiffs were protesting their continued institutionalization despite the state treatment professionals recommending that they receive community-based care. As a result, they felt they were being confined in a hospital with no adequate medical reasons (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999).

Description of the appellate process that took place in this case

In Olmstead v. L. C., (1999) the concerned entities, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson are expressively retarded persons who were institutionalized to Georgia regional hospital at Atlanta (GRH) on a chosen basis. One of them Lois Curtis was suffering from schizophrenia while Elaine Wilson had a disorder that relates to personality; thus, they were restrained at the psychiatric unit.

Despite their treatment professionals recommending their community-based treatment, they remained confined in the hospital. They filed the suit claiming the state violated Title II by failing to provide them with the recommended community-based treatment (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999). The district court ordered the provision of community-based treatment for the two women. In addition, the court refuted the claims by the state that continuing confinement of the two women was a result of inadequate funds and not discrimination.

The district court judgment was acknowledged by the eleventh circuit but suggested the re-evaluation of the state’s defense in relation to the cost. However, the district court had absolutely no jurisdiction over such defense. As a result, the appeal court read the laws and policies to permit the defense but in restricted conditions. The Eleventh Circuit directed the district court to consider the effect of supplementary cost of treatment for the two women on the state’s budget. The case was, as a result, heard at the Supreme Court (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999).

I believe this case was addressed at the Supreme Court because the state did not want to incur additional costs on the treatment of the two women, at the same time the two women wanted to grant pertaining to their right to autonomy so that they could be provided with community-based treatment in accordance with the ADA. The human rights entities also contributed to this course by their consistent following up of the case progress.

The implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on health care services today

The court’s decision had positive implications on health care services today. This is evident because over time the government and the congress have been encouraged to advance the community and home preferences. As a result, several state and federal initiatives have enacted measures that will; make community living and adjustment by patients a reality.

One of the initiatives that have come out to help states accomplish this goal is the substance abuse and mental health services administration. The transition from health facilities to the community were made possible through coordination of the community-housing subsidies with human service funds. This was made possible via the signing of a memorandum between the department of health and human services and the department of housing and urban development.

As a result, the provision of the community based treatment to people suffering from any form of disability was implemented. Hence, the institutionalization of people with disabilities was reduced substantially (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999).

For example, California like all other states had the obligation to adhere to the Olmstead judgment. This judgment stated that confining people with disabilities without medical reasons amounted to discrimination that acted against the ADA. California’s care programs for the mentally disabled, physically impaired, elderly and those with advancing impairments were compared with three other states and examined. As a result, the incidents of patients’ hospital confinement were reduced, and the attention was shifted to the advancement and integration of the community and home-based nursing.

Hence, this has been accomplished with consideration of the overall costs of the program. Most importantly, the state fulfilled the Olmstead mandate by adhering to the judgment by the U.S Supreme Court.

The ways in which this case and its resolution served the purpose and functions of the law

The purpose and function of decrees is to preserve freedom and moral values in a society. The case involving Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson against the state of Georgia together with its resolutions served the main purpose and function of the law. This is so as people living with disability acquired freedom to access community based care.

Hence, they will develop their social relationship with the community. Advancement of social relationship will help manage their disabilities especially those suffering from mental disorders (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999). It is noteworthy that freedom is a major medication ingredient for individuals with disabilities; thus, the U.S Supreme Court Olmstead decision was a major boost towards improved medical care for people with disabilities. It is evident that the ruling of this case relieved people with disabilities from the pain they were going through in the prior years.

Another purpose of law that was served by this case and its resolutions was the preservation of moral values in the society. Thus, this case and its resolutions scraped the unethical conditions that were being imposed on people with disabilities. One of these unethical conditions included the unjustified confinement of these people.

This was considered unethical as they were discriminated against and, as a result, they could not mingle with other people. This form of discrimination worsened their health conditioned due to the stress they suffered. Furthermore, this discrimination at some point made these people feel rejected by the community. Thus, this case restored the moral values in dealing with people with disability (Olmstead v. L. C., 1999).

Reference

Olmstead v. L. C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

Click Here To Order Now!

Olmstead v. L. C.: The Olmstead Decision

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)