Strasbourg, France---Europe's rights court on Friday backed the decision of a French court to allow a man in a vegetative state be taken off life support, in a ruling that could become a benchmark on the continent.
The fate of Vincent Lambert, 38, who was left a quadriplegic with severe brain damage after a 2008 road accident, has torn apart his family in a judicial tug-of-war over his right to die.
His parents and two siblings had appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights in a desperate bid to stop doctors from withdrawing intravenous feeding after exhausting their legal options in France.
But the court voted 12 to five that a French court decision, which said Lambert should be allowed to die, did not violate European rights laws.
"It is a scandal, our son has been sentenced to death," said his mother Viviane Lambert, who wiped away tears as the ruling was handed down.
"We will stay by Vincent's side and keep on fighting."
The case pitted Lambert's mother against his wife who insists her husband -- a former psychiatric nurse -- would never have wanted to be kept alive artificially.
Even though the court ruled in her favour, wife Rachel said she was "devastated" by the decision.
"There is no relief or joy to express," she said, adding "we want his wishes to be fulfilled."
- Legal tug-of-war -
The legal drama began in January 2014, when Lambert's doctors, backed by his wife and six of his eight siblings, decided to stop the intravenous food and water keeping him alive in line with a 2005 passive euthanasia law in France.
His deeply devout Catholic parents, half-brother and sister won an urgent court application to stop the plan, calling it "akin to torture".
In an appeal, the French supreme administrative court, known as the State Council, ordered three doctors to draw up a report on Lambert's condition and in June 2014 ruled that withdrawing care from a person with no hope of recovery was lawful.
Lambert's parents then took the case to Europe's rights court which ordered France to keep him alive while it decided whether the State Council's decision was in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The court concludes that the case was the object of a thorough investigation where all points of view were expressed and all aspects weighed long and hard" from both a medical and ethical perspective, read the ruling from the Strasbourg court.
AFP
