They have taken a peep inside the box and found a can of worms...
A new hope...
But when fair blows the wind, it is for any to use to steer their ship to their own advantage.
This week, a ruling was made in a case brought under the European Convention on Human rights to determine the 'right to die'...
and the the law was found wanting.
This is The Yorkshire Post –A Leeds man paralysed in car accident has learned this morning he has lost what could be his last legal attempt in the right-to-die battle.
Paul Lamb, from Leeds, was at the Supreme Court in London this morning to hear the judgement.
The 58-year-old, who was left quadriplegic following the crash in 1990, took his case to the Supreme Court after losing a Court of Appeal hearing over the issue.
He was at the court in London today with Jane Nicklinson, whose late husband Tony Nicklinson began the case.
Mr Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome and lost the first round of his battle in the High Court in 2012. Shortly afterwards he began refusing food and died a week later.
Mr Lamb had been following the case and decided to contact Mrs Nicklinson, who was continuing the legal battle on her husband’s behalf.
Their bid to change the law on assisted dying failed in the Court of Appeal but in December they took the battle to the Supreme Court.
The European Convention on Human rights was drafted in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War.
Foremost in the minds of those who compiled it was to enshrine some legal protection for the right of citizens to life and liberty. It is doubtful that it was ever envisaged that the convention would be used to demand the right to die.
The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress. Over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member states of the Council of Europe gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft a "charter of human rights" and to establish a court to enforce it. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention. As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be effectively applied. With his help, the French former minister and Resistance fighter Pierre-Henri Teitgen submitted a report[4] to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just agreed to in New York, and defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates,[5] the Assembly sent its final proposal l[6] to the Council's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the Convention itself.
- Wikipedia
It was held that Section 2 of the Suicide Act was incompatible with the right to respect for private life, which is protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention. The case was argued that the rights of Mr. Nicklinson and Mr. Lamb under the article should be accommodated by their being able to seek, with the assistance of third parties, the 'right to die' at a time of their choosing.
As has been found in the case of the Mental Capacity Act, these drafters of law are found wanting in the skills of their craft.
Five of the Supreme Court judges held that the court did have the “constitutional authority” to declare that a general prohibition on assisted suicide was incompatible with the human right to private and family life. Two of those five said they would have made such a declaration.
It was only the context of the presentation of the case that had caused it to fail. The arguments against were “by no means overwhelming”.
Lord Neuberger, and two of his fellow judges said that the law permitted a “grave” interference with the right of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb to decide their own fate.
The Law Lords recommended that Parliament should debate revising the law to permit “a judge or other independent assessor” to authorise an assisted suicide.
Both Mr. Lamb and Mrs. Nicklinson said that this was a “positive” step in the fight for change.
A new hope...?
It is a ‘new hope’ but for whom and for what? This is a can of wriggling worms that has been opened.
Does the Samaritan have the duty to counsel the suicidal against their intent when it is the ‘right’ of the suicidal to die and to decide that to be their fate?
Is it a mental health issue for concern to mental health and other professionals to determine, to decide and to address if their client is suicidal or expresses an intent to act upon a decision to take their life and should the professional intervene in contravention of their client's 'right to die'? Does the professional have that right? Where does the professional stand in the context of safeguarding and duty of care?
Does the concerned bystander who rushes in to pull back the desperate but determined suicide from the platform’s edge infringe upon their right to decide their own fate – and die?
A new hope? What hope?
The Court of Appeal has found for Janet Tracey that her human rights were violated by the Cambridge University Hospital Trust and the Secretary of State for Health.
This is Courts and Tribunals Judiciary –
Read further here -
A new hope...?
This is Danielle Hamm, Director of that dodgy euthanasia charity that has hoodwinked Age UK into letting them share their toilet facilities, blogging on Dignity in Dying –
Well, if theVoluntary Euthanasia Society Dignity in Dying crowd
see this decision as a new hope, then this really is a can of worms.
Perhaps, all in all, it's no more a 'new hope' than was the totally hopeless shambles that was the LCP Review.
The final word...
Is life but something we own rather than something that is our essential selves?
Michael Wenham speaks on Yahoo! News –
Read further here -
As has been found in the case of the Mental Capacity Act, these drafters of law are found wanting in the skills of their craft.
Five of the Supreme Court judges held that the court did have the “constitutional authority” to declare that a general prohibition on assisted suicide was incompatible with the human right to private and family life. Two of those five said they would have made such a declaration.
It was only the context of the presentation of the case that had caused it to fail. The arguments against were “by no means overwhelming”.
Lord Neuberger, and two of his fellow judges said that the law permitted a “grave” interference with the right of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb to decide their own fate.
The Law Lords recommended that Parliament should debate revising the law to permit “a judge or other independent assessor” to authorise an assisted suicide.
Both Mr. Lamb and Mrs. Nicklinson said that this was a “positive” step in the fight for change.
 |
| The Metro |
It is a ‘new hope’ but for whom and for what? This is a can of wriggling worms that has been opened.
Does the Samaritan have the duty to counsel the suicidal against their intent when it is the ‘right’ of the suicidal to die and to decide that to be their fate?
Is it a mental health issue for concern to mental health and other professionals to determine, to decide and to address if their client is suicidal or expresses an intent to act upon a decision to take their life and should the professional intervene in contravention of their client's 'right to die'? Does the professional have that right? Where does the professional stand in the context of safeguarding and duty of care?
Does the concerned bystander who rushes in to pull back the desperate but determined suicide from the platform’s edge infringe upon their right to decide their own fate – and die?
A new hope? What hope?
The Court of Appeal has found for Janet Tracey that her human rights were violated by the Cambridge University Hospital Trust and the Secretary of State for Health.
This is Courts and Tribunals Judiciary –
Read further here -
Liverpool Care Pathway - So Readily Do Perceptions Change...
 |
| - Court Judgement |
This is Danielle Hamm, Director of that dodgy euthanasia charity that has hoodwinked Age UK into letting them share their toilet facilities, blogging on Dignity in Dying –
Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that doctors acted unlawfully in the case of Janet Tracey, by placing a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) order on her records without consulting her or her family. This is a landmark ruling, codifying the need for healthcare professionals to ensure patients are at the heart of decisions made about their treatment at the end of life.
Well, if the
Perhaps, all in all, it's no more a 'new hope' than was the totally hopeless shambles that was the LCP Review.
The final word...
Is life but something we own rather than something that is our essential selves?
Michael Wenham speaks on Yahoo! News –
Read further here -
Liverpool Care Pathway - This Is The Way It Slides, With A Slither...
No comments:
Post a Comment