1. M.P. and Others v. Romania (Application no. 39974/10): The first two applicants complain, relying on Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHRon behalf of the third one, their child as regards his right to life, which has allegedly been infringed by his birth as a result of medical negligence. The first two applicants also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the birth of a child with a disability, as a result of medical negligence, infringed their right to the protection of their private and family life.
Articles 5, 10 and 24 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Princples 4, 8 and 14 of the Principles set out in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Progress in the Biomedical Sciences (CAHBI), 1989
Articles 6 and 20 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
2. Elberte v. Latvia (Applivcation no. 61243/08): The applicant complains relying on Article 8(1) of the ECHR of a breach of her deceased husband's physical integrity. She also complains that her right to respect for her private and family life was infringed on account of not having been asked to give or refuse consent to the removal of tissue from her deceased husband's body. She submitted that she was forced to bury her deceased husband with tied legs and that at a time, being in a state of shock after her loss and being pregnant with their second child, she could not imagine that it was due to the fact that her husband's body had been desecrated.
Special refences:
Articles 19-20 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Articles 1, 16-17 of the Additional
Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Bioethics concerning
Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin
3. Petrova v. Lativa (Application no. 4605/05): The applicant complains under Article 8 of the ECHR of interference with her son’s physical integrity on account of the removal of his organs without his prior consent. In addition, the applicant submits that while her son was still alive an analysis of the organs later removed from him was carried out and blood tests were performed in order to determine their compatibility for transplantation purposes with the potential recipient’s body. Lastly, the applicant submits that the interference was not in accordance with the law on account of the insufficient clarity of the law.
Special refences:
Articles 19-20 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
No comments:
Post a Comment