Remember the use of doctors in the case of Bernard Rappaz? If you are in Switzerland, you know the facts. If this is not the case, you will find a summary here , and several previous comments here , here, here, and here . Following the order they had been given to force-feed their patients, physicians responsible for the clinical management of Bernard Rappaz had refused to comply, and appealed to the Federal Court. He has now ruled that it does not decide .... The full stop is in the case of TF, and is found easily by typing 6B _1011/2010 here . The Bottom Line:
"The order given to the Geneva doctor to perform a forced feeding of Bernard Rappaz lapsed since the prisoner began to eat. As the probability that a case similar to this is" very low ", the High Court considers that it can dispense with making a decision.
She admits that the question asked by the doctor who challenged the legality of the order had been given by Councillor of Valais state-Kalbermatten Esther Waeber, presents "significant public interest." If a such a case should arise again, there is no indication that the doctor concerned could not use in time, said the High Court. "
We will not have time for this decision trench between the two readings their earlier decisions that were (and remain) on the table. They can be summarized, somewhat hastily, as follows: 1) forced nutrition can be used as a last resort to save the life of a prisoner capable of understanding because it is possible to practice with dignity and in the rules of medical art, and a doctor's approval is not necessary, 2) nutrition can not be forced used even as a last resort to save the life of a prisoner capable of discernment, because it can be practiced in a dignified manner and not in accordance with the rules of medical art, or at least a doctor's approval that it is a situation where it would be possible is necessary.
The Federal Court but of course, correct: it is highly unlikely that another similar case occurs. Fortunately. And it is now closed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment