Introduction
Pestinika and his wife were generous people who offered help to an elderly person in need of better nutrition and health care. They were free to do so and agreed verbally to offer their help. They received payment from the government to take care of the patient who had signs of recovering. It is due to their failure and ignorance that the 90-year-old patient died. The constitution chapter102.003 of the Texas Human Resources code provides that an elderly person have all rights, privileges, benefits granted by the constitution and laws of this state and the United States, except where lawfully restricted. The couple was right to agree on taking care of the ill elderly person, the constitution requires all elderly, children to receive better nutritional, and health services. It is one way that citizens can employ to implement the constitution. The only problem is negligence.
Requirements of the law
According to the constitution of Texas, all children and elderly people have special rights and freedoms. All of them should enjoy their rights and freedom fully without any interruption. The law provides that unless the law limits them no one should interfere with the rights and freedoms of these two special groups. A person is considered to be elderly once he or she attains 60 years and above. An elderly person has a right to get better treatment and nutritional requirements as provided by the law of the land.
Legal implications
The death of the elderly person in the hands of Pestinikas and his wife is a criminal offense. This is because they received payment from the government to offer all medical and nutritional requirements to the elderly ill person. It is due to their negligence that resulted in the death of the patient. Negligence according to the constitution is a criminal offense. They can be held responsible for causing the death of the elderly person who was in their custody. The patient could have survived if only they could have offered the right nutrition and medical care. They denied the patient to enjoy his or her constitutional rights even after receiving payments for caring for the patient (Cesare, 2005).
It is also possible that Pestinikas and his wife had other intentions when they verbally agreed to help the patient. Their corrupt actions can be seen when they do not provide services to the patient. In this case, they will face two charges according to the constitution (Johnson, et al., 2008). First, they will face a case of negligence that resulted in the death of an elderly individual who was sick. Secondly, they will be accused of corruption.
Conclusion
The couple in the context had a vision for implementing the state’s constitution. They agreed without any outside forces to offer their help to an ill elderly individual. This is the most important aspect of good citizens (Benedetti, 2009). They went on the wrong side of the law when they failed to utilize the resources, which were provided to them for attending to the patient. This is against the law and the constitution therefore, they face criminal charges for causing the death of one elderly individual. This can be interpreted as corruption as well as negligence. This qualifies the couple to be liable for the death of the sick elderly. They stand a trial in a court of law.
References
Benedetti, F. (2009). Placebo effects: understanding the mechanisms in health and disease. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cesare, B. (2005). An Essay On Crime and Punishments. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, C, et al., (2008). “Chiropractic and public health: current state and future vision”. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.