Lance Ito
Essay #1
February 12, 1997
       Â
        In the reviewing the case of Planck v. Indiana, many complicated issues arise. Included in those, individual rights conflicting with the public good are among the roughly difficult. According to Mr and Mrs. Plancks attorney, John Price, the Plancks religious beliefs prohibit them from accepting skipper medicine practice, as they practice alternative medicine and internal school their children. After a complaint from an older Planck daughter, who did non embrace or respect her familys lifestyle, the state was called in to check over the health of the Planck children. In a preliminary check by the state of Indiana for eyesight, Lance Planck was found not to be in need of any service. Despite this finding, the Madison County master copy Court ordered that all of the Plancks childrens eyes be examined by the state. One month after the Court ordered this, cardinal armed officers with guns drawn came to the Plancks residence and commanded Mr. and Mrs. Planck to give up their children. Mr. Planck told the officers that he did not know why they were there, was pushed to the ground and had loaded rifles pointed at him. The children were then forcibly removed from their parents custody, and at no sequence was any identification shown by the officers.
Curt, Lance Plancks younger brother, resisted this remotion from his house, and was threatened by an officer that he would be dragged egress of here. After this scene, Emily, Stephen, and Curtis Planck were loaded into a van and driven to an eye doctor in Anderson, Indiana. The examining doctor, Dr. Joseph Woschitz, came to the conclusion that no treatment was infallible for any of the children. How can the state justify this type of expression? Is ripping a child unwillingly from his mothers...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment