Postgrad Med J

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Havers, P
Right arrow Articles by Neenan, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Havers, P
Right arrow Articles by Neenan, C
Postgraduate Medical Journal 2002;78:573-574
© 2002 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine


EDITORIAL

Human rights

Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on medical law

P Havers , C Neenan

1 Crown Office Row, Temple, London, EC4Y 7HH, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Caroline Neenan;
caroline.neenan@1cor.com


Not only is the right to life protected by law but the state should take steps to safeguard life

Keywords: medical law; human rights; right to die

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

This article focuses on the interplay between the right to life enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)* and the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment contained in Article 3 and the practice of medicine.


ACCESS TO TREATMENT
The concept that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law enjoins the state not only to refrain from taking life intentionally but, further, to take appropriate steps to safeguard life.1

The domestic courts have not made a finding on the funding of treatment since incorporation. In 1995 the Court of Appeal held that the Cambridgeshire Health Authority was entitled not to fund very expensive medical treatment for a young child which was unlikely to prolong her life for more than a few months.2 The courts are unlikely to reach a different view today. It is clear that to interpret the state’s duty to safeguard . . . [Full text of this article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Criminal JusticeHome page
T. Seddon
Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: Conceptual, ethical and criminological issues
JCriminology and Criminal Justice, August 1, 2007; 7(3): 269 - 286.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JRSMHome page
A. Samanta and J. Samanta
The Human Rights Act 1998--why should it matter for medical practice?
J R Soc Med, September 1, 2005; 98(9): 404 - 410.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2002 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine