↓ Skip to main content

Comments on the Lambert case: the rulings of the French Conseil d’État and the European Court of Human Rights

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Comments on the Lambert case: the rulings of the French Conseil d’État and the European Court of Human Rights
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11019-016-9724-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denard Veshi

Abstract

This study examines the decisions of the French Conseil d'Etat (Supreme Administrative Court) and the European Court of Human Rights in the Lambert case concerning the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. After presenting the facts of this case, the main legal question will be analyzed from an ethical and medical standpoint. The decisions of the Conseil d'État and then of the European Court of Human Rights are studied from a comparative legal perspective. This commentary focuses on the autonomous will of an unconscious patient and on the judicial interpretation of the right to life as recognized in article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, it medically classifies artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) as a "treatment" which has ethical and legal implications. While the majority of the bioethical community considers ANH a medical treatment, a minority argues that ANH is basic care. This classification is ambiguous and has conflicting legal interpretations. In the conclusion, the author highlights how a French lawmaker in February 2016, finally clarified the status of ANH as a medical treatment which reconciled the different values at stake.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 25%
Arts and Humanities 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#453
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,780
of 337,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.