The Court found that the contents of the will of Vincent Lambert "could not be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty" and found that "it is inappropriate that the CHU de Reims had considered that Mr Lambert could be regarded as having demonstrated its willingness to interrupt this treatment.
"THE WISHES OF VINCENT WERE NOT MET.
It has also estimated that "the continuation of treatment was neither unnecessary nor disproportionate and did not aim only artificial maintenance of life. The CHU, the nephew of Vincent Lambert and his wife, who says that Vincent Lambert had expressed before his accident his refusal of an artificial life support, will file an appeal with the Council of State.
"It's added violence to violence", said Rachel Lambert, for whom "let him go is the ultimate proof of love that can bring him. This decision "may create an unfortunate case", for his part regretted Me Bruno Lorit, François Lambert lawyer, nephew of the patient, which "drives [t] a decision less general and more centered on the specific case of Vincent. A view shared by Dr. Eric Kariger, head of the Department of palliative medicine, CHU de Reims, who believes that "the wishes of Vincent have not been met.
THE CURRENT LAW "CONSISTS OF AMBIGUITIES.
The reaction of the Government did not do wait. "It is not for me to comment on a court decision, certainly I believe know that the wife of Vincent Lambert will lodge an appeal with the Council of State and thus the procedure continues," said on Europe 1 Marisol Touraine, the Minister of health, before estimating the law Leonetti was not enough.
The current law "has ambiguities that should be lifted, because it is clear that there are different assessments between doctors, family and the judges on what this law allows to make," the Minister said, refusing however to provide a precise timetable.
Adopted in 2005, the law Leonetti includes that physicians may, after obtaining the opinion of the relatives, stop treatments 'unnecessary or disproportionate and whose sole purpose is the artificial maintenance of life'.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PART OF THE FAMILY AND THE CHU
Saturday, Dr. Eric Kariger had announced to the family of Vincent Lambert imminent stop of his power and artificial hydration. But Monday, her parents, a sister and a half-brother seized the Administrative Court of Châlons-en-Champagne in an application for interim relief-freedom to demand annulment of medical decision and transfer to another hospital.
This is the second time in nine months that the Administrative Court of Châlons-en-Champagne believes that the framework provided by the law Leonetti has not been respected by the team of Dr. Kariger. In may, after thirty-one days of interruption of artificial nutrition, the parents of the young man had already obtained the resumption of feeding their son, on the grounds that they had not been adequately informed of this decision.
View the original article here
"THE WISHES OF VINCENT WERE NOT MET.
It has also estimated that "the continuation of treatment was neither unnecessary nor disproportionate and did not aim only artificial maintenance of life. The CHU, the nephew of Vincent Lambert and his wife, who says that Vincent Lambert had expressed before his accident his refusal of an artificial life support, will file an appeal with the Council of State.
"It's added violence to violence", said Rachel Lambert, for whom "let him go is the ultimate proof of love that can bring him. This decision "may create an unfortunate case", for his part regretted Me Bruno Lorit, François Lambert lawyer, nephew of the patient, which "drives [t] a decision less general and more centered on the specific case of Vincent. A view shared by Dr. Eric Kariger, head of the Department of palliative medicine, CHU de Reims, who believes that "the wishes of Vincent have not been met.
THE CURRENT LAW "CONSISTS OF AMBIGUITIES.
The reaction of the Government did not do wait. "It is not for me to comment on a court decision, certainly I believe know that the wife of Vincent Lambert will lodge an appeal with the Council of State and thus the procedure continues," said on Europe 1 Marisol Touraine, the Minister of health, before estimating the law Leonetti was not enough.
The current law "has ambiguities that should be lifted, because it is clear that there are different assessments between doctors, family and the judges on what this law allows to make," the Minister said, refusing however to provide a precise timetable.
Adopted in 2005, the law Leonetti includes that physicians may, after obtaining the opinion of the relatives, stop treatments 'unnecessary or disproportionate and whose sole purpose is the artificial maintenance of life'.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PART OF THE FAMILY AND THE CHU
Saturday, Dr. Eric Kariger had announced to the family of Vincent Lambert imminent stop of his power and artificial hydration. But Monday, her parents, a sister and a half-brother seized the Administrative Court of Châlons-en-Champagne in an application for interim relief-freedom to demand annulment of medical decision and transfer to another hospital.
This is the second time in nine months that the Administrative Court of Châlons-en-Champagne believes that the framework provided by the law Leonetti has not been respected by the team of Dr. Kariger. In may, after thirty-one days of interruption of artificial nutrition, the parents of the young man had already obtained the resumption of feeding their son, on the grounds that they had not been adequately informed of this decision.
View the original article here
Friday, January 17, 2014 | 0
comments | Read More