By Gabriel Princewill-
The United Nations has requested that Archie Battersbee’s life-support continues while it considers a “last ditch” application from his family.
The 12-year-old was found unconscious at home in Southend, Essex, on 7 April. After Appeal Court judges ruled that doctors could lawfully disconnect his ventilator, and the Supreme Court closed the doors to their legal fight, Archie’s parents made an application to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UNRPD) .
Medics in the Uk are adamant it is not in the best interest of Archie to keep his life support machine on, but the young lad’s parents are refusing to give up on their son, against the series of knock backs from the courts.
The UN’s intervention is poised to make the case become very dramatic, with issues of law potentially being brought to the fore to thoroughly examine the relative strengths of the two sides of the arguments.
Archie’s parents, Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee, argued her son’s case had a protocol that allowed individuals and families to “make complaints about violations of disabled people’s rights”. The case pits medical judgement with that of a parents desperation to cling on to their child’s life. Whether the 12 year old’s parents claim to disability rights is applicable in the case of Archie is one question because he is not known to have any pre-existing disability. The disability in question arose after the young boy participated in the ill fated challenge.
As the UK had joined the optional protocol to the Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the UN was able to ask the government to delay the withdrawal of life support while a complaint is investigated, Christian Concern said.
In a letter, the chief of the UN’s Human Rights Treaties Branch, Ibrahim Salama, said it had “requested the state party (the government) to refrain from withdrawing life-preserving medical treatment, including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition and hydration, from the alleged victim while the case is under consideration by the committee”.
“This request does not imply that any decision has been reached on the substance of the matter under consideration,” Mr Salama said.
Legal grounds for either decision may have to be openly be assessed to identify which parties actually have the legal rights in this hotly contested legal dispute. It somewhat undermines the integrity of law when a universal standard of law cannot be applied to the same case with underlying legal principles clearly explained.
Rule Of Law
Controversial laws now presiding in the U.S over abortion rights have questioned the true legitimacy of rulings in the courts in determining which side is actually right. Landmark rulings these days seems to be about establishing rules, rather than wholly defensible rules. An underpinning feature of the rule of law is fairness , consistency and reliability. Rules anchored on partisanship are often corrupt and do a disservice to justice
The U.S Supreme Court’s ruling which banned abortion, bestows upon court rulings the semblance of power display, rather than the rule of law. Law must be based on objective legitimacy, not which judges can exert more power and influence in establishing their own ideals as law. The abuse of power is precisely why checks and balances are embedded in every judicial system which need not be betrayed by indiscretion at any level.
The arguments surrounding the case of Archie Buttersbee is not entirely dissimilar to the raging abortion debate in America. Both are based on competing rights or misconceptions of fundamental rights.
The argument against abortion for instance is essentially premised on the protection of the right to life- an ideology of christian and religious orientation with a plausible rationale when the sanctity of life is viewed as a precious virtue which must be preserved. However, no right in law is ever absolute. They are always subject to limitations.
The flexibility of law when dealing with Human rights is a fundamental principle of Human Rights Law that suddenly eludes the attention of ostensibly self conceited judges who may have the well intended goal of defending the convictions of their faith.
Merit
Yet, it loses merit once the terrifying possibility of rape comes into the equation because it seeks to give the right to life an unyielding characteristic which is indefensible to rational and unbiased minds.
The conflict between anti abortionists who uphold life as a gift from God which must be preserved and those who insist women have inalienable rights to their bodies is complex to reconcile when both sides are argued to their best conclusions.
The same reasoning applies to that of Archie. The family and the Uk courts have opposing views in terms of the law, but what matters most is which holds more weight in law.
Doctors treating Archie at the Royal London Hospital, run by Barts NHS Health Trust, said he was brain-stem dead and continued life-support treatment was not in his best interests.
Ms Dance said: “I am so grateful to the UN for their response and for acting so quickly for my son.
“We have been under so much stress and anxiety; we are already broken and the not-knowing what was going to happen next was excruciating. To get this news now means everything.”
Alistair Chesser, chief medical officer for Barts Health NHS Trust said: “We are giving Archie’s loved ones time to come to terms with the decision of the courts that treatment should not continue and are involving them in each stage.
“Any further delay in starting palliative care would not be appropriate without an order of the court.”