The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has upheld a ruling by the French courts that allowed doctors to remove life support from a man who was left tetraplegic after a car crash in 2008.
The law in France does not authorise either euthanasia or assisted suicide, yet provides for the preservation of a patient’s dignity, and for support of those close to them. It permits doctors, in accordance with a prescribed procedure, to discontinue treatment only if continuing it would demonstrate ‘unreasonable obstinacy’, in other words, if it would mean taking it to unreasonable lengths.
In the case at hand, the patient’s condition was reported by doctors to be characterised by irreversible brain damage, with treatment that appeared futile and disproportionate having no effect other than to sustain life artificially. On this basis France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, ruled that the decision to withdraw care from a man with no hope of recovery was lawful. The patient’s wife agreed with the doctors' recommendation that his life should be ended as there was no hope of recovery. The decision, however, was appealed by his parents, who are devout Catholics, who argued he had shown signs of progress and believed he was merely in need of better care.
In examining the scope of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to life, the Strasbourg Court stressed that the issue before it was not that of euthanasia, but rather the withdrawal of artificial life-sustaining treatment and observed that in such a case reference should be made to Article 8 of the ECHR. Accordingly, the Court considered that in the sphere concerning end of life, States must be afforded a margin of appreciation, not just as to whether or not to permit the withdrawal of artificial life-sustaining treatment and the arrangements governing such withdrawal, but also as regards the means of striking a balance between the protection of patients’ right to life and the protection of their right to respect for private life and personal autonomy.
The ECtHR ultimately found the legislative framework laid down by domestic law, as interpreted by the French Court, and the decision-making process – which had been conducted in meticulous fashion – to be compatible with the requirements of Article 2.
Click here for full judgment in Lambert and Others v France.