Can a court compel a particular doctor to treat a particular patient? In episode 15 of the first season of House, Dr. House is served with a federal court order which specifically orders him to treat a particular patient who is needed as a witness in some kind of prosecution. (The patient is in a coma, and will not be able to testify unless he recovers.) House is one of many doctors in the hospital, and there is no indication that he has any prior relationship with the patient. Doesn't this violate the Thirteenth Amendment?
A federal or state court can, in proper cases, order people to take specific actions, In civil suits this is known as &quot;Specific performance&quot;. in the Wikipedia article it is said that: Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. ... ... Such order[s] are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy and in some specific cases such as land (which is regarded as unique). ... ... Moreover, performance based on the personal judgment or abilities of the party on which the demand is made is rarely ordered by the court. The reason behind it is that the forced party will often perform below the party's regular standard, when it is in the party's ability to do so. In the case of contracts calling for specific personal service, such as that of an entertainer, an athlete, or a uniquely qualified professional, courts have been reluctant to order the individual to perform, but have been willing to order the person not to perform similar services for anyone else until the disputed contract is fulfilled or settled. This would not seem to apply to the situation on the House show. Therefore such an order would quite possibly be within a court's power, but would be highly unusual, particularly if other doctors could equally well perform the service and were willing to do so. Beyond that, the equitable remedy of &quot;specific performance&quot;: is used when a party has in fact agreed to do something and then does not carry out the promised act. But in the situation described in the question Dr House had no such previous agreement, as I understand it (I haven't watched the episode). Under those circumstances, an order for such specific action to a particular person becomes very unlikely indeed. There would even be a question whether House would be subject to the court's jurisdiction since he has done nothing to involve himself in the case previously. Also if the treatment were not in the best interests of the patient, but only in the interest of the court system, such an order would be still more unlikely. I do not know of any similar order in real life.
The specifics are set at the provincial level. In British Columbia, consent is required for medical treatment except in certain circumstances like being incapable of consenting. However, the law also says that A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care. In some circumstances (i.e. as laid out in section 12), such a tattoo could trigger a "DNR" effect, but the "must not" provision has a narrower range of application, where it limits the exception to the consent requirement in the case of life saving emergency measures for an unconscious patient. More general advance directives can be given, but such a directive has more detailed requirements, and usually takes the form of filling out a printed form and including the signature of the individual and two witnesses. The aforementioned tattoo would not pass muster as a legal advance directive (even if the text were "don't transfuse me"). It might suffice under the "reasonable ground to infer consent refused" clause.
I know of no legal restrictions on using the title of Doctor in the United states. I know next to nothing about Canadian law and can't speak on that. Falsely claiming to have a license to practice medicine is probably illegal, depending on circumstances, and practicing medicine without a license is most certainly illegal, and there a numerous federal and state laws that would apply. But simply styling one's self as Dr. is unlikely to be held by a court as a claim to hold a medical license, or a particular degree. It's, of course, misleading and generally frowned to use the Dr. prefix unless one has earned an MD or PhD. Some holders of honorary doctorates use it as well, though some debate whether that's acceptable or not.
1) Bob could disclose the PTSD condition and seek accommodation for it (in reality, controlled narcotics aren't actually used to treat PTSD but it isn't hard to imagine a situation where another controlled substance, e.g. ketamine, was used to treat this or some other Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disability and the absence of that disability was not a bona fide qualification of the job). The legal analysis in the case of the FBI (a federal government civilian civil service employer subject to special rules applicable to governmental employers), and a private employer, is not exactly the same, but it ends up in the same place. 2) Medical marijuana is, as a matter of federal law an oxymoron, because it is a Class I controlled substance that as a matter of law (contrary to reasonable facts) has no medical applications, and the FBI is charged with enforcing this law (among other agencies), so medical marijuana would legally disqualify someone from FBI employment. In Colorado which has legal under state law medical marijuana, employers have been allowed to discriminate based upon medical marijuana use because an employer is at a minimum allowed to treat federal law as enforceable. It is conceivable that some U.S. state other than Colorado which allows medical marijuana at the state level might reach a different conclusion as a matter of state law on the employment discrimination point, but potentially, the employer could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a pre-emption argument so it would be a tenuous legal position to take.
This is normal. It only seems imbalanced because only the prosecutor has been able to call witnesses so far. Under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 611: Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. At this point, only the prosecution has put on its witnesses, so it hasn't had an opportunity cross examine anyone, and the defense has been able to lead because it has only been able to cross examine. Were the prosecutor to call the defendant's wife or mother or something like that, he would probably be permitted to use leading questions. And when the defense puts on its case, the roles will reverse: the defense attorneys will have to use open-ended questioning for any witness he calls, and the prosecutor will be able to use leading questions.
Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof. This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can &quot;plead the 5th&quot;. There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.
You don’t need to hire an attorney If you like, you can represent yourself. Just like you can build your own house, repair your own car or amputate your own limb. You only need to be a lawyer if you are representing someone else. However, there is a saying that goes: A person representing themselves has a fool for a client. Your lawyer is a professional, you aren’t. They know what to do when the other side says “Objection, facts not in evidence” or how to correctly fill out, file and serve a pleading; do you?
There is no prospect for equitable relief in such an outcome. The Texas state government enjoys sovereign immunity, except as specified under the Tort Claims Act. Under that law, immunity is waived only in the case of damage caused by negligence of a state employee, and is limited primarily to vehicle accidents and physical injuries. So the state cannot be sued for passing a law found to be unconstitutional. An individual would not enjoy such immunity, but given the law, there is no identifiable defendant to seek relief from (everybody is a potential defendant). An former abortion provider who now declines to perform an abortion can't be sued, because doctors in general have no obligation to perform particular medical procedures (most doctors in Texas won't perform an abortion, even before SB8), and the course will not render a judgment against a doctor on the grounds that they obeyed an existing law but should have known that it would be found unconstitutional.