hard to remain calm and think in a situation so tense that a hunger strike. In any case, it sometimes gives the impression that reading newspapers commenting on the case of Bernard Rappaz. So a little clarification. Item 1 - The Geneva-based physicians do not preclude the application of TF Case: they have understood it all.
That case, who has actually read ? This can be explained as follows:
"Proceed to force-feeding violates fundamental rights to freedom of expression and personal integrity of the prisoner. To justify the forced nutrition, so you have a justification in court these transgressions. In Switzerland, limiting a fundamental right requires several conditions. It is necessary that the restriction is justified by public interest. Let. The restriction must be proportionate to that aim. Finally, "the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable . What is the essence of fundamental rights? Here, just know that "the right not to be subjected to punishment or to cruel, inhuman or degrading" is included, and that the federal court explicitly concede. Forced nutrition is therefore justified that if it is not inhuman or degrading treatment. only "if it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of the art of medicine" . "
" If it is done with dignity and in accordance with the rules of medical art. " Physicians do not have to comply with any order. Stopping TF clearly excluded from this requirement a scenario: one where nutrition forced represent inhuman and degrading treatment. On this point, law and ethics are in perfect agreement. Which brings us to ...
Item 2 - The law and medical ethics are sometimes at odds, yes, but this is not the main issue here.
From an excellent interview with Alex Mauron in the press today:
"The Federal Court has a caricature of ethics when talking about medical directives of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences as if it were the alpha and omega of medical ethics. This revolves around the right to self-determination of the patient. It is anchored in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights in biomedicine is to say in the most basic international law. In fact, the Federal Court also admits this. OK, lip perhaps. Between the lines, no doubt. But he admits. Because you never know if you're in a situation where he can practice a diet 'worthy'? You guessed it: Based on the judgments of clinicians aware of the values of their profession. Where:
Item 3 - Eligibility (legal as well as ethical) nutrition depends, among other forced a clinical trial.
is also one of the criteria identified in the report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in a 2009 report on forced nutrition applied in Spain. This review has been quoted as admitting that nutrition can sometimes forced to qualify. It is worthwhile to look at the detail. Here is their advice texto:
"14. If a decision is made to force-feed a prisoner on hunger strike, the CPT's opinion, such a decision should be based on medical necessity and applied in appropriate conditions that reflect the medical nature of the measure. Moreover, the decision process must follow an established procedure containing adequate safeguard, including an independent medical decision. The possibility of legal recourse should be available and all aspects of the implementation of the decision must be monitored adequately
(...)
Nutrition forced a prisoner without meeting these conditions could quite match treatment inhuman and degrading treatment. "
" Including a independent medical decision, which is one of the "watchdog" required. The CPT therefore acknowledges that in effect forced nutrition may be eligible, yes. But only if this conditions, and a few others of course are met.
The threat of justice to prosecute doctors Valais who refuse the order to feed their power is deeply disturbing patient, because it seems based on a combination of these errors. The doctors did not follow an order based on the decision of TF if the situation is not one defined by the TF. And ethical considerations on which these are based physicians are not 'external'. They are 'anchored in the law', and are among the criteria used to define TF as the scope of his arrest: he excludes the possibility of inhuman and degrading treatment.
embarrassing, this threat is also that it gives the impression that the logic of the standoff continues. That the question is who is the strongest. The question is knowing how to get out of this situation honorably. Without sacrificing core values. Or as little as possible.
For that we must abandon the logic of the standoff, exactly. Continue to seek a solution that saves Hwy ant as possible, goat and cabbage. If it exists. When none is that we are faced with a tragic case. A situation where whatever we do there will be a serious transgression. But all the transgressions are not equal. Violating someone's human rights is precisely what is supposed to have decided not to make any money. The TF says so: Swiss law also provides that 'the essence of fundamental rights is inviolable'. In other words, we have decided that it remained to the end of the rights we will not infringe, even in the name of a very very very good cause ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment