by NexDev | July 19, 2017 | News
On July 19, the Council of State pronounced its ruling regarding the examination procedure for halting Vincent Lambert’s treatment. Two years ago, in July 2015, Dr. Simon first initiated, and then decided to suspend the proceedings. The ruling stated that this decision was illegal, and must therefore be cancelled.
Dr. Sanchez who is currently in charge of Vincent Lambert, must now start afresh and decide whether to request a new collegial procedure with the intention of blocking the patient’s treatment (halting feeding and hydration, which would lead to his demise).
This ruling is consistent with the public rapporteur’s position stated during the audience last July 10th. It also confirms the ruling from the Administrative Appeals Court in Nancy, which was the origin for instigating this appeal with the Council of State.
The following points are outlined in the Council of State’s ruling:
- The decision for halting treatment issued by Dr. Kariger on January 11, 2014 “is no longer applicable since he is no longer the patient’s attending physician”. On this basis, the complaint filed by the nephew, François Lambert is thereby rebuked, since he claimed that a new collegial procedure was unnecessary and that the hospital only needed to abide by Dr. Kariger’s decision to put a halt to Vincent’s treatment.
- Simon’s decision in July 2015, to suspend the collegial procedure without giving a specific time limit, was ruled to be illegal since a doctor “cannot decide to suspend the proceedings for the reasons cited”, meaning that at that time, she deemed there was a lack of serenity and safety.
According to case law from the Council of State in June 2014, for the same case, « the attending physician must consider all factors, both medical and non-medical; the respective significance cannot be predetermined. Each case must be evaluated based on the individual circumstances for each patient concerned”.
The claim filed by Vincent Lambert’s parents’ is also rebuked, since it requested that the Administrative Appeals Court ruling be overturned.
by NexDev | July 12, 2017 | End of life, Euthanasia and Suicide, News, Palliative care
29 September 2008: At the age of 32, Vincent Lambert was plunged into a deep coma by a serious car accident. Hospitalised at the re-animation unit at the Hospital complex of Chalons-en-Champagne, he woke to a so-called “poorly relational” state.
July 2011: Prof. Steven Laureys, an eminent neurologist specialised in the mechanisms of consciousness, examines the young man and concludes his state of consciousness as “minimal plus”, which implies “the persistence of emotional perception, and the existence of possible reactions to his environment”. He encourages those close to him and the carers to put a communication code into place with Vincent.
16 November 2011: Vincent is admitted to the service of Dr Kariger, in the palliative care unit of the Sebastopol hospital in Rheims reserved for patients in a poorly-relating state. He does not need any particular medical treatment, just to be fed and hydrated by a gastric tube.
10 April 2013: According to a collegial court ruling, and with the agreement of his wife Rachel Lambert but without telling either his parents, or brothers and sisters, the hospital decides to put an end to Vincent’s life by stopping feeding and drastically reducing hydration. Behind this decision were some signs of his opposition to some medical actions at the start of 2013, which, according to the medical team, “led one to suspect a refusal to live”.
26 April 2013. The parents learn the news and categorically oppose the decision. Faced with the refusal of the medical staff, they file a statement with the Prosecutor of the Republic and hire a bailiff to demand that feeding be resumed.
9 May 2013. Following the persistent refusal of Dr Kariger, they request an emergency court injunction.
11 May 2013. The administrative tribunal of Châlons-en-Champagne orders that feeding be immediately resumed, since the correct collegial procedure had not been respected. Vincent subsequently survives, although having been deprived of food for 31 consecutive days.
Second Semester 2013: Two more attempts are made to bring an end to Vincent’s life. One is by his wife before the court injunction, the other by a half-nephew who questions the administrative tribunal, but the judge upholds his decision. During this period, Dr Kariger contests the collegial procedure again, carries out several consultations with medical staff and members of the family, and reaches a new decision to implement the protocol to end Vincent’s life, starting from 13 January 2014.
16 January 2014. The administrative tribunal of Châlons-en-Champagne reiterates its annulment of Dr Kariger’s decision to end Vincent’s life, because the wishes of Vincent Lambert himself are not clearly established, and because Unreasonable Continuance of Treatment has not been established. The room of the young man is then put under permanent surveillance/observation, with limited access to him.
End of January 2014: Rachel and Vincent’s semi-nephew then decide to appeal the State Counsel. The situation is new in that the highest administrative jurisdiction in the country is being called upon to pronounce on the legality of a decision whose purpose is to put an end to a person’s life.
14 February 2014: The State Counsel orders that a team of three doctors specialized in neuroscience be consulted for the Vincent Lambert case, in order to have a complete and up-to-date overview of his state of health. The appointed neurologists : Lionel Naccache (for the CCNE – National Consultative Committee on Ethics for life & health), Marie-Germaine Bousser (for the Academy of Medicine) and Jacques Luauté (for the Order of Doctors of Medicine). It also calls upon these three national bodies and upon MP Jean Leonetti to provide observations to elucidate the medical and ethical implications.
17 April 2014: The National Counsel of the Order of Doctors publishes its contribution and concludes : “…when a person reaches a situation where artificial life-support sustains only his bodily life, (…) there being no clinical sign or investigation allowing one to hope for any change for the better, the conditions of an Unreasonable Continuance of Treatment can be regarded as upheld, indicating thus the putting into action of the collegial procedure [for terminating support].”
5 May 2014: The National Consultative Committee on Ethics (CCNE) submits its observations. The document notes this essential point: “Simply the fact of an irreversible dependence on nutritional assistance to live, without hope of improvement, does not of itself characterise – we underline, of itself – an artificial maintaining of life and an Unreasonable Continuance of Treatment.”
15 May 2014: The Academy of Medicine publishes its reflections: “It is not in the mission of the doctor to provoke death deliberately. (…) No doctor can accept that the right of a person (…) to food, other treatments (physiotherapy, prevention of bed-sores, hygiene) and measures appropriate to the quality of life, should be subordinated to his capacity to relate“.
23 June 2014: On the eve of the decision of the State Counsel, there is a fatal foreboding/premonition t for Vincent, judging by the recommendations of his public reporter. Vincent’s parents enter into urgent contact with the European Court of human Rights (CEDH).
24 June 2014: The State Counsel judges the medical decision legal to put an end to the feeding and hydration of Vincent Lambert, considering that it is a case of treatment that the doctor can legitimately stop, being a case of Unreasonable Continuance of Treatment. However, the same day the CEDH request that the French government suspend the execution of the State Counsel’s decision (for the stopping of treatment), for the length of time its own procedure takes.
24 September 2014: Rachel Lambert publishes “Vincent, because I love you, I want to let you go”. (“Vincent, parce que je l’aime, je veux te laisser partir”, Fayard)
2 January 2015: The National Union of Associations of Families of patients with Cranial Trauma & lesion (UNAFTC) write to President Francois Hollande.
7 January 2015: In Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights (CEDH), who have proceeded to examine the request made to the Great Chamber, holds its public audience.
8 January 2015; Dr Kariger publishes “My truth in the Vincent Lambert affair” (“Ma vérité sur l’affaire Vincent Lambert”, Bayard).
20 April 2015: Several people close to Vincent Lambert including childhood friends launch an appeal, with a dedicated site that in a short time gathers more than 30 000 signatures.
4 May 2015: A letter from his mother, Viviane Lambert, dated the 22nd April and addressed to the President of the Republic, is made public: “ The life of my son has become a judicial and media affair that has suspended everything, but you don’t suspend, Mr President, a minimum of humanity”.
7 May 2015: Viviane Lambert publishes “For the life of my son” (“Pour la vie de mon fils”, Plon).
27 May 2015: Viviane Lambert writes for a second time to Francois Hollande: “My son is handicapped, not dying.”
5 June 2015: The CEDH (European Commission on Human Rights) announces its judgment upholding the decision of the State Counsel.
![Court of Cassation Undermines the Ban on Surrogacy [Press Release]](https://www.alliancevita.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/courdecassation-1080x675-1.jpg)
by NexDev | July 5, 2017 | Medically Assisted Procreation, Press Releases
Alliance VITA responds to the French Court of Cassation’s rulings of July 5, 2017 concerning surrogacy acts performed abroad, and recording the resulting births on the civil registry, with birth certificates and simple adoption declarations.
Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate :
« Instead of retrospectively endorsing the practice of surrogacy, which is the equivalent of encouraging it, France should be bold enough to formally protest it, including its consequences on the civil registry. Only if France has a determined abolitionist stance can this crucial and decisive shift be prevented from veering toward the ultra-liberal international marketing of human beings. Only a resolute social and legal condemnation of surrogacy can protect humanity. What is at issue is quite frankly the trafficking of human beings. Surrogacy is a premeditated abuse: it plans for a child to be abandoned, by brutally separating him from the mother who bore him, and by inflicting upon him a shattered maternity of several “mothers”. It is therefore in opposition to the child’s best interests, and to women’s dignity, for society to use them as “manufacturers” of human beings. It is urgent for France to sanction these acts committed abroad which transgress our fundamental ethical principles. Who would dare admit that children born from surrogacy are the innocent victims of the commanding sponsors? Who would dare allow them the right to seek compensation for the inherent abuse in these acts? Should they be obliged to endorse the surrogacy act whereby they themselves were abused, under the pretext that they are sincerely loved by those who have procured them in this manner?”
Caroline Roux, Director at VITA International, and member of the International joint group No Maternity Traffic
« This decision constitutes another step towards allowing surrogacy, by turning a blind eye to the fraud against the law. The Court of Cassation is manipulating adoption, by endorsing this deliberate tampering with parentage. How can one not speak out against abuse when a child born to a surrogate mother, is only conceived in order to be abandoned at birth? Recall that the French ban on surrogacy is primarily to protect women and children’s rights. This ruling deeply questions the role of French law for justice. The French president and his government need to urgently commit to establishing a bold and determined policy to effectively prohibit all surrogacy, both nationally and internationally.”
by NexDev | July 4, 2017 | Palliative care
On June 28, 2017, the decision rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirms the British courts’ ruling, thus authorizing withdrawal of life-support for Charlie Gard, a 10-month-old infant with a mitochondrial disease.
Born on 4 August 2016, Charlie was diagnosed with a very rare and severe mitochondrial disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (“MDDS”). The disease is caused by mutations in the RRM2B gene, without any realistic prospect of improvement. The hospital requested for the British courts to declare whether they could legally stop artificial respiration and only give palliative care. The parents disagreed and pleaded to know “whether it would be in their child’s best interest to have experimental therapy from USA administered”. The British judges have ruled in favor of allowing the hospital to stop artificial respiration, judging that Charlie was being exposed to continued and unrelievable pain, suffering and distress. According to the same courts, undergoing experimental treatment would offer no benefit for the child.
His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, filed a complaint with the ECHR based on articles 2, 5, 6 and 8. For the parents, the British hospital’s decision constituted unlawful interference in their private family life, as well as violating the right to life. On June 9, the Court granted an interim measure for the child to be maintained on life-support until a decision was reached.
In the Court’s ruling, it was mentioned that the States have a certain discretionary power, with jurisdiction for elaborating regulatory guidelines to govern “access for experimental treatment as well as for discontinuing life-supporting care”, if the latter is compatible with the Rights of the Convention. The Court also took into account the decisions from the in-house court proceedings, and deemed the objective to be “clear and detailed, thus enabling the conclusions to be substantiated in a meaningful manner.”
Thus the ECHR upheld the British courts’ recommendations, and little Charlie must remain in the UK, where no modifications have been made in his treatment for the moment. The next step planned is to discontinue the child’s artificial respiration. Nevertheless, the hospital promises that nothing will be done immediately, and any change in Charlie’s care and future treatment will involve “careful planning and discussion”.
This case looks much like that of little Marwa, from Marseilles, where the French court ruled in favor of maintaining healthcare.
by NexDev | June 30, 2017 | News
On June 26, the service in charge of statistics at the French National Health Ministry (the “Drees”) published the abortion statistics in France for 2016, noting a slight decrease.
Although there has been a slight decline these past 3 years, the number of abortions has remained stable on an overall level, and significantly high over a period of 15 years whereas Germany and Italy have reported a sharp decrease with rates two times lower.
Last year, 211,900 abortions were performed, compared to 219,000 the preceding year. “The rate is 13.9 abortions for 1000 women aged 15-49 years old for metropolitan France, and 25.2 for the departments and regions overseas (“DROM”)” according to the “Drees”.
Young women under 20 have less recourse to abortion than in the past few years. “The overall percentage has dropped since 2010 for the under 20-year-olds, after showing a significant increase from 1990 to 2010”. However the highest percentage of abortions is still reported in the 20-29 year-old age group.
There are also disparities according to the regions. The highest percentages for abortion for metropolitan France were recorded in the “PACA” region (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) followed by Ile-de-France (suburban Paris region), and the overseas departments which were largely above the national average. “The rate of abortion is 13.9 for 1000 women aged 15 to 49 for metropolitan France and 25.2 for the departments and regions overseas (“DROM”).”
Having recourse to medication abortion continues to increase and it accounted for 64% of the total number of abortions, including 18% performed at home. In the PACA region, at-home abortions account for 24%. It is notable that medication abortion affects the allowable decision-making timeframe since in hospitals, it is only allowed prior to 7 weeks of pregnancy, and at home prior to 5 weeks, whereas the legal delay is 12 weeks.
Alliance VITA continues to plead for a genuine prevention policy for abortion and presented its propositions during the international seminar on this issue which was held in Brussels last June 23rd.
To refer to VITA’s evaluation and propositions for abortion prevention
