In September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR) upheld a breach of Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), in that the UK failed to provide RK and AK with an effective legal remedy for the removal of their child from their care as a result of medical misdiagnosis. The case throws into focus the approach the domestic UK courts have on the rights of third parties, in particular, the rights of parents where their children are subjected to negligent medical treatment.
In Tysiac v. Poland (2007) the Strasbourg Court ruled in favour of the applicant (who had been denied access to a lawful therapeutic abortion), finding that Poland had failed to comply with its positive obligations to safeguard the applicant's right to effective respect for her private life under Article 8. Exploring this controversial judgment, the author assesses the claim that Tysiac marks a 'radical shift' on the part of the Court in creating a 'right to abortion'. The author argues that while Tysiac makes an important addition to abortion jurisprudence, the notion it founds such a 'right' greatly overstates the legal significance of this case.
Today, the Court decided in the case of Haas v. Switzerland (judgment in French only) that the right to private life is not violated when a state refuses to help a person who wishes to commit suicide by enabling that person to obtain a lethal substance. The applicant in the case, Ernst Haas, had for two decades been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder (more commonly known as manic depression). During that time he attempted to commit suicide twice. Later, he tried to obtain a medical prescription for a small amount of sodium pentobarbital, which would have allowed him to end his life without ain or suffering. Not a single psychiatrist, of the around 170 (sic!) he approached, was willing to give him such a prescription. This would have been necessary, under Swiss law, which allowed for assisted suicide if it was not done for selfish motives (in the opposite case, the person assiting could be prosecuted under the criminal code).
A 22-stone ex-policeman trying to persuade a health authority to fund obesity surgery started the latest round of his legal fight today. Grandfather Tom Condliff, of Talke, Staffordshire, who is 62 and 6ft 2in, says he needs stomach surgery to save his life. But the North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) refuses to fund a laparoscopic gastric bypass operation. In April, the High Court refused to quash the PCT's decision not to provide the surgery. Today, Mr Condliff's lawyers sought to overturn the High Court ruling in the Court of Appeal.
A 22-stone ex-policeman has lost his Court of Appeal fight to force a health authority to fund obesity surgery. Tom Condliff, 62, said he needed a gastric bypass operation to save his life after becoming obese due to the drugs he takes for long-term diabetes. The Stoke-on-Trent man challenged a decision by North Staffordshire PCT to refuse to fund the procedure. Court judges expressed "considerable sympathy" but ruled the funding policy did not breach human rights laws. Lord Justice Toulson, one of three judges sitting on Wednesday, said: "Anyone in his situation would feel desperate." Mr Condliff, of Talke, who has a body mass index (BMI) of 43 - not high enough under his PCT's rules to qualify for surgery - lost a High Court battle over the decision in April. But his lawyers had argued the PCT had applied a funding policy which was legally flawed and breached his human rights.
Frances Swaine and Merry Varney are instructed by David Tracey, whose wife, Janet Tracey, sadly died in Addenbrooke’s Hospital on 7 March 2011. Following her admission to Addenbrooke’s, a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation Order’ (known as a DNACPR or DNR) was placed on Janet’s medical notes. Janet was unaware of the DNACPR and when she became aware of it several days later, she clearly stated it was against her wishes and that she wanted to be resuscitated. As a result the DNACPR was cancelled. Several days later however a further DNACPR was entered onto her records. We have issued a judicial review and human rights claim against the NHS Trust responsible for Addenbrooke’s and against the Secretary of State for Health seeking Declarations from the Court that the Trust’s policy on the use of DNACPR is unlawful, and for the Secretary of State for Health to issue national guidance for patients and their families to know their rights concerning the use of DNACPRs.
In the case of V.C. v. Slovakia the Court found a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and of the right to respect for private and family life concerning the sterilisation of a young Slovakian woman of Roma origin.
Last week, the European Court of Human Rights decided in the case of Haas v. Switzerland (judgment in French only) that the right to private life is not violated when a state refuses to help a person who wishes to commit suicide by enabling that person to obtain a lethal substance. The applicant in the case, Ernst Haas, had for two decades been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder (more commonly known as manic depression). During that time he attempted to commit suicide twice. Later, he tried to obtain a medical prescription for a small amount of sodium pentobarbital, which would have allowed him to end his life without ain or suffering. Not a single psychiatrist, of the around 170 (sic!) he approached, was willing to give him such a prescription. This would have been necessary, under Swiss law, which allowed for assisted suicide if it was not done for selfish motives (in the opposite case, the person assisting could be prosecuted under the criminal code).
The Claimant seeks three declarations, namely: i) A declaration that it would not be unlawful, on the grounds of necessity, for Mr Nicklinson's GP, or another doctor, to terminate or assist the termination of Mr Nicklinson's life. ii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that the current law of murder and/or of assisted suicide is incompatible with Mr Nicklinson's right to respect for private life under Article 8, contrary to sections 1 and 6 Human Rights Act 1998, in so far as it criminalises voluntary active euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. iii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that existing domestic law and practice fail adequately to regulate the practice of active euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary), in breach of Article 2.
European Court judges in Strasbourg have ruled against Germany in an assisted suicide case, saying a widower's rights were infringed. Ulrich Koch challenged the German ban on actively helping someone commit suicide. His paralysed wife died after taking poison in Switzerland in 2005. The judges did not rule on the ban, but said the German courts should have examined Mr Koch's complaint. On assisted suicide, the judges said it was up to individual nations to decide. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered Germany to pay Mr Koch 2,500 euros (£1,600; $2,460) in damages and 26,736 euros for legal costs. There was a violation of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) because of the German courts' refusal to examine the merits of Mr Koch's complaint, the ruling said.