To start on my question I will give you a short case brief for the malette vs shulman case

Facts: Mrs. Georgette Malette was the passenger on a motor vehicle when it crashed into a truck, killing her husband. The plaintiff was seriously injured and was rushed unconscious to the hospital. Dr. Shulman who is treating the plaintiff concluded to administer blood transfusions considering she was bleeding profusely and her blood pressure was dropping. Throughout the process a nurse discovered a card in her purse that read "NO BLOOD TRANSFUSION!" The card indicated she was a Jehovah's witness and will refuse blood transfusion in any circumstance. The nurse informed the defendant Dr. Shulman about the card and he ignored the card considering it was not dated and was unsure if the plaintiff is currently a Jehovah's Witness. The plaintiff's condition was starting to worsen and the defendant thought it was absolutely necessary to administer blood transfusion since she was dying. The defendant acted to his best judgement to provide blood transfusion anyway which he thought was professional and a competent decision.

The daughter of the plaintiff signed a document to prohibit blood transfusion which provided enough proof for the Defendant that she was still indeed a Jehovah's Witness, the defendant ignored her. The decision which benefited the plaintiff also infringed her rights over her body by acting contrary to her intentions without authorization. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for battery.

Issue: Is the doctor liable for administering blood transfusions to an unconscious patient in an emergency situation when the patient is wearing a card stating shes Jehovah witness and refuses blood transfusions for religious reasons?

Decision: Appeal in favor of the plaintiff, defendant was liable for assault and it is required the defendant pays the plaintiff $20,000 for violating rights over her body. Defendant appealed to the original hearing, appeal dismissed.

Judicial reasoning: It is illegal for a Doctor to perform an operation without the patient's consent, otherwise he will be held for battery. A card Mrs. Malette was carrying clearly indicated that she refuses blood transfusions and was unconscious when the doctor was administering blood transfusion. Dr. Shulman was fully aware of the card and it was signed. However, he wasn't sure if she had changed her religious beliefs before the accident or she signed it because of family pressure. Dr. Shulman had no reason to believe the card did not represent her wishes. During the process of the blood transfusion, Mrs. Malettes daughter arrived at the hospital and informed Dr.Shulman that both she and her mother are Jehovah's Witnesses, and she knows her mother will strongly refuse the transfusion. The daughter signed a document specifically to prevent the transfusion and Dr.Shulman refuses to follow her instructions.

Question regarding the case: identify the main elements of the natural law theory and explain how the decision in Malette v Shulman reflects aspects of Natural Law theory.

This doesn't have to be a complete answer I just have trouble reflecting aspects of the natural law theory for the decision. Anything helps thank you

Just in case I will copy and paste the definition of natural law from the slides.

-Inherent link btw law and morality

-Validate "human-made" positive laws against higher principles of justice

-Universal/immutable characteristics of higher principles

-Provides a justification for obeying law

- Unjust law need not be obeyed (b/c not legitimate)