Warning: The original language in which this blog is written is either French or English. The automated translation may be imperfect. Readers are invited to refer to the original version of each post.
The European Court of Human Rights on Monday ruled inadmissible the eight complaints filed against the decision of the Italian courts to authorize the cessation of artificial feeding of a young woman who is quadriplegic and has been in a coma for 16 years. The European Court considered that the plaintiffs had no link with the young woman and that they could therefore not consider themselves “direct victims of the alleged violations”. (Le Soir, Monday 22.12.2008)
We do not comment here on the merits of the case or the question of euthanasia. Rather, it is about the pernicious nature of the legal technique used. The theory which links the legitimacy of an action before the courts to the fact of having a direct interest in this action, contains the individualization of society. Everyone is considered accountable for their private interests alone, and the State becomes the sole custodian of the common good. The community has fallen by the wayside.
For the State and its law to stop cutting society into strips and finally respect its integrity, the notion of direct interest or harm must be abandoned in favor of a broader concept of indirect interest for the benefit of societal organizations. civil society and groups of citizens carrying the common interest. This cannot fuel any inflation of interested individual appeals, because the latter do not represent the common interest. The “public” (read: State) Ministry would lose any monopoly on representing the common good.
The European Court of Human Rights on Monday ruled inadmissible the eight complaints filed against the decision of the Italian courts to authorize the cessation of artificial feeding of a young woman who is quadriplegic and has been in a coma for 16 years. The European Court considered that the plaintiffs had no link with the young woman and that they could therefore not consider themselves “direct victims of the alleged violations”. (Le Soir, Monday 22.12.2008)
