英国莱斯特代写作业:宗教信仰
Keywords:英国莱斯特代写作业
然而，在寻找有效地提醒查利，这也是可以理解的是，当决定拒绝同意的是他的宗教信仰的后果，在欧洲人权公约1950、9条[ 10 ]可能出现的问题，关系到自由的保护思想，良心和宗教，并对欧洲人权法院的基础”（'ecthr”）决定在霍夫曼诉奥地利[ 11 ]。然而，尽管如此，它也必须认识到，在Arrowsmith的欧洲委员会诉英国[ 12 ]曾表示“宗教实践”并不包括所有的行为动机或宗教或信仰的影响。然而，复杂的问题所产生的宗教信仰可能最有效地证明在重新吨[ 13 ]，从而有效地认识到，成人可以拒绝医疗[ 14 ]。但T的母亲是耶和华的证人，反对输血，因此拒绝同意-虽然她不知道这是唯一的手段拯救她的生命。因此，考虑到这一点，其余的T的家庭申请到法院的授权，因为它是T的'最佳利益'接受输血，以便能够活着[ 15 ]。 虽然在T [ 16 ]的决定似乎意味着可怕的但先生能够进行输血，查利授权，仍然需要注意，这可能仍然被认为是与欧洲人权公约1950 [ 17 ] 9条不一致的。但仍然反对，必须承认，病人的情况是危及生命的福利，病人通常需要血液制品。此外，从事实也欣赏查利进行一卡，有效地禁止他在输血和重要，对马莱特诉舒尔曼[ 18 ]的决定的基础上，必须认识到，相反，在情况不被认为是威胁生命的，实质性损害可获精神上的痛苦。因此，有了这个想法，因为查利拿着一个卡说他不想要任何血液制品，它可以有一个“高级指令”[ 19 ]类似的效果，应该阻止他输血并赋予他赔偿符合一般侵权赔偿的基本原则是成功的申请人应获得赔偿以恢复他们的位置，他们就在有侵权行为没有发生。
英国莱斯特代写作业:宗教信仰
Nevertheless, in looking to effectively advise Charlie, it is also to be appreciated that when the decision to refuse consent is a consequence of the his religious beliefs, under the ECHR 1950, Article 9 issues may arise[10], in relation to the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and, on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ (‘ECtHR’) decision in Hoffmann v. Austria[11]. However, in spite of this, it must also be recognised that the European Commission in Arrowsmith v. UK[12] had previously indicated ‘religious practice’ does not include every act motivated or influenced by a religion or set of beliefs. Nevertheless, complex issues arising from religious belief were possibly most effectively demonstrated in Re T[13] whereby it was effectively recognised that an adult could refuse medical treatment[14]. But T's mother was a Jehovah’s Witness who objected to blood transfusions and T accordingly refused to consent - although she was unaware this was the only means of saving her life. Therefore, with this in mind, the rest of T’s family applied to the courts for authorisation because it was in T’s ‘best interests’ to receive the transfusion in order to be able to stay alive[15].Although the decision in Re T[16] would appear to imply Mr Dire would be able to carry out the blood transfusion with authorisation, however, Charlie still needs to be advised that this may still be considered to be somewhat inconsistent with Article 9 of the ECHR 1950[17]. But still against that it must be recognised that where the patient’s condition is life-threatening the welfare of the patient will usually require blood products. Moreover, from the facts it is also important to appreciate that Charlie carried a card that effectively prohibited him from having a blood transfusion and, on the basis of the decision in Malette v. Schulman[18], it must be recognised that, conversely, where the situation is not considered life threatening, substantial damages may be awarded for mental distress. Therefore, with this in mind, since Charlie was carrying a card stating he did not want any blood products, it could have a similar effect to an ‘advanced directive’[19] and should have prevented him having a blood transfusion and entitle him to damages in keeping with the general compensatory principle underlying tort being that the successful claimant should receive damages to restore them to the position they would have been in had the tort never occurred.
