- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Hurtado v. Switzerland (1994)
Key Idea:
Failure to provide necessary medical care can violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, specifically Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Facts of Hurtado v. Switzerland:
The European Commission ruled that denying necessary medical care could constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the ECHR.
Important Considerations & Related Cases:
1. Difficulty in Claims:
Key Idea:
Failure to provide necessary medical care can violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, specifically Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Facts of Hurtado v. Switzerland:
- The applicant was arrested on drug charges.
- He was forced to wear soiled clothing.
- He was denied immediate medical assistance after a stun grenade was used during his arrest.
The European Commission ruled that denying necessary medical care could constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the ECHR.
Important Considerations & Related Cases:
1. Difficulty in Claims:
- It can be challenging to win cases focusing on specific treatments rather than general medical care.
- North West Lancashire HA v A, D and G: Article 3 does NOT force the state to provide free treatment.
- North West Lancashire HA v A, D and G: Article 8 also doesn't create a "positive obligation to provide treatment."
- Van Kuck v Germany (2003): Article 8 CAN impose a positive obligation on the state in some circumstances (subject to a "margin of appreciation").
- Facts: A transsexual person argued that Germany violated Article 8 by not forcing her insurance to cover hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery.
- Decision: The European Court found a violation of Article 8 because German courts didn't fairly balance the insurance company's rights with the applicant's rights and placed a disproportionate burden on the applicant to prove the "medical necessity" of the treatment.
- If a Health Authority creates a "legitimate expectation" of providing a resource, Article 8 may prevent them from withdrawing it.
- R v North and East Devon HA ex p Coughlan: Withdrawing specialist nursing home care without a suitable alternative breached Article 8.
- Whether this principle applies to other resources (e.g., kidney dialysis) is uncertain.
- R (on the Application of Burke) v GMC (2004): This case emphasizes patient autonomy in treatment decisions.
- A competent patient, through current wishes or advance directives, can decide what is in their best interest, even if the doctor disagrees.
- While a court won't force a doctor to provide a specific treatment, the doctor must continue treating the patient until another physician is found to take over.
- Declaratory relief can be ordered against the doctor, and mandatory orders can be made against the Trust/Health Authority.
- The right to determine one's best interests in treatment is protected by Article 8 and possibly Article 3.
- Note: This case was likely to be appealed (so its long-term impact may be uncertain).
0 Comments