Posted on 06/05/2015 1:27:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
A European court has issued a ruling that a disabled patient can be starved to death against his will.
Vincent Lambert, a tetraplegic patient who has been in a state of minimal consciousness in hospital for six years following a car accident, is current receiving food and water via a feeding tube. The decision to cut his intravenous food and water supply has divided his family. Lambert’s doctors and wife wanted to starve him to death while his parents, who are vehemently opposed to ending his life, took his case to court.
In January 2014 a court in France ruled against starving Lambert to death. But, today, the European Court of Human Rights today issued its decision and, by a vote of 12-5, the Grand Chamber held that a State may take Lambert’s life against his will.
Grégor Puppinck of the ELCJ, a pro-life legal group, tells LifeNews.com that the European Court of Human Rights also refused Vincent Lambert’s parents the right to complain on behalf of their son regarding the inhumane treatment he has been subjected to for three years now, due to stopping his physiotherapy care.
“Thus, the Court not only held that in Europe, we can again legally induce the death of a disabled patient who did not ask to die, but in addition, it denies that patient the protection of the Convention against mistreatment. By refusing to guarantee the right to life and to medical care for Vincent Lambert, the Court is turning a page in the history of human rights in Europe,” Puppinck said. “The Court reintroduced into the European legality the possibility to euthanize a disabled person, even though it is precisely against this ideology that the European Convention on Human Rights was proclaimed in 1950.”
“In 1946, during the Nuremberg trials, physicians who practiced euthanasia of disabled persons were convicted. These convictions founded contemporary medical ethics. In this sense, the National Consultative Committee on Ethics (Comité Consultatif National d’Éthique, CCNE), in its recent comments had clearly confirmed the ethical prohibition of ending the life of a patient,” the pro-life attorney continued. “Today, the “European Court of Human Rights in good health” revives a fatal practice we hoped to be gone in Europe. For the first time, the Court grants a “margin of appreciation” to States in their positive obligations to respect the lives of people, based in particular on its abortion case-law.”
“This decision puts at risk the “legal death” of tens of thousands of patients in Europe who are in the same situation as Vincent Lambert. The respect for their right to life is no longer guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights,” he concluded.
In a dissent, the five judges siding with Lambert’s parents and protecting his right to life wrote, “We regret that the Court has, with this judgment, forfeited the” (…) “title of The Conscience of Europe” it was awarded in 2010 for its fiftieth anniversary. The European Court of Human Rights again further turns human rights into an individualistic and utilitarian ideology.”
Black-robed despots intend to bend the entire world to their utilitarian whims.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is horrifying.
A categorical imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself.
It is best known in its first formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
What about the human rights of the patient...oh well hitler is happy about this decision.
Nazism returns to Europe.
Who is obliged to pay for your care if you or your family have not made arrangements of some kind? At what point does the burden of keeping you alive shift to the taxpayers?
No death penalty for murderers, but for people who have outlived their usefulness.
That is murder....
The only thing that surprises me is that they don’t force their victims to dig their own graves first...
If his parents are paying for his medical care, they should be able to keep him alive.
Forcing the taxpayers to do so is socialism. Period.
Begs the question: what do socialists do when they run out of other people’s money?
What’s the difference between starvation and Zyclon-B?
Bound to happen. Abortion is legal and there it starts. An unborn baby is the most innocent person in the world. If such a life can be taken, certainly any other person could be also.
They are willing to kill such innocents, and yet they don’t approve of the death penalty. That’s certainly bass akwards.
First they kill the babies, then disabled and elderly, eventually no lives will be off limits. As they add more and more groups to the ok to kill list, when will it be ok to execute convicted murderers?
The brains of these people are whacked.
When they legalized abortion, we knew this day would come .. The liberals denied it was a slippery slope..
Wouldn’t it have some justice if they found themselves sitting on that slop now ??
People Court Rules That Judge May Be Killed Without Panalty
Ten days to two weeks, usually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.