|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
EDITORIAL |
| Human rights |
1 Crown Office Row, Temple, London, EC4Y 7HH, UK
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Caroline Neenan;
caroline.neenan@1cor.com
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 everyones 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 states duty to safeguard
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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 |