Council of State
Ordinance of the Judge of Referrals of August 16, 2002
N ° 249552
Ms. Valérie FEUILLATEY and Ms. Isabelle FEUILLATEY
Having regard to the request, registered at the Litigation Secretariat of the Council of State on August 13, 2002, presented for Ms. Valérie FEUILLATEY and for Mrs Isabelle FEUILLATEY, GATT wife, asking the judge of the Conseil d’Etat:
1 ° to annul article 2 of the order of the summary judge of the administrative court of Lyon dated August 9, 2002 as this article indicates that the injunction addressed to the university hospital of Saint-Etienne will cease to apply. ” apply if Ms. Valérie Feuillatey finds herself in an extreme life-threatening situation;
2 ° to order the University Hospital of Saint-Etienne not to proceed under any circumstances with the forced administration of a blood transfusion on Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey against her will and without her knowledge;
Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey and Mrs. Isabelle Feuillatey, wife Gatt maintain that, taking into account the state of health of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey and the risk that a new infusion is practiced, there is urgency to pronounce the requested injunction; that as found by the judge of the summary administrative court, the right for the patient to accept or refuse treatment has the character of a fundamental freedom; that on the other hand it is wrong that this same judge considered that it was possible, in the event of vital risk, to intervene against the consent of the patient; that both the general principles which flow from the inviolability of the human body that the provisions introduced into the public health code by the law of 4 March 2002 relating to the rights of patients and the quality of the health system require, on the contrary, this consent, since, as in the present case , the patient is able to express it; that the judge of the summary proceedings could not therefore, without disregarding the law of March 4, 2002, match his injunction with a reserve, moreover incompatible with the very nature of an injunction; whereas the freedom of conscience enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also requires respect for the patient’s wishes; without disregarding the law of March 4, 2002, attach a reservation to his injunction, moreover incompatible with the very nature of an injunction; whereas the freedom of conscience enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also requires respect for the patient’s wishes; without disregarding the law of March 4, 2002, attach a reservation to his injunction, moreover incompatible with the very nature of an injunction; whereas the freedom of conscience enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also requires respect for the patient’s wishes;
Having regard to the contested ordinance;
Seen, recorded on August 14, 2002, the new thesis presented for Ms. Valérie Feuillatey and Ms. Isabelle Feuillatey, wife Gatt; it tends to the same ends as the request, by the same means;
Seen, transmitted by fax on August 14, 2002, the defense, presented for the university hospital of Saint-Etienne; it tends to reject the request; the university hospital maintains that, taking into account the improvement of the state of health of Mrs. Feuillatey, the condition of urgency is not met; that the behavior of the hospital administration does not reveal, at the date on which the judge of the summary proceedings of the Council of State is called upon to pronounce, any serious and manifestly illegal interference with a fundamental freedom; that a transfusion necessary for the survival of the patient can in no way constitute a serious infringement of a fundamental freedom; that it follows from the jurisprudence of the Council of State, which the law of March 4, 2002 does not contradict, that in the event of vital risk,
Considering, transmitted by fax on August 14, 2002, the observations presented by the Minister of Health, Family and Handicapped Persons; the Minister indicates that he does not have to take a position in a dispute between a patient and a public hospital establishment, which has legal personality; he adds that the law of March 4, 2002 is part of an evolution which tends to better protect the rights of the patient;
Seen, transmitted by fax on August 16, 2002, the memorandum in reply presented for Ms. Valérie Feuillatey and Ms. Isabelle Feuillatey, wife Gatt; they tend to the same ends as the request, by the same means; the applicants maintain moreover that the urgency results from the behavior even of the hospital center; that the religious convictions of Mrs. Feuillatey, which must be respected, prohibit her from accepting a blood transfusion; that it is up to the summary judge, whose mission is quite different from that of the trial judge then assessing the responsibilities incurred, to take all the necessary measures so that the administration does not infringe the fundamental freedom which is thus in cause;
Having regard to the other documents in the file;
Having regard to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Having regard to the civil code;
Having regard to the public health code, and in particular its article L. 1111-4, in the wording given to it by law n ° 2002-303 of March 4, 2002 relating to the rights of patients and the quality of the health system;
Considering the code of administrative justice;
After having summoned to a public hearing, on the one hand, Ms. Valérie Feuillatey and Ms. Isabelle Feuillatey and on the other hand, the Saint-Etienne university hospital and the Minister of Health, Family and Handicapped Persons,
Having regard to the minutes of the public hearing of August 16, 2002 at 11:30 a.m. at which the following were heard:
– Me Blondel, lawyer at the Council of State and at the Court of Cassation, lawyer for Ms Valérie Feuillatey and Ms Isabelle Feuillatey,
– Me Bouzidi, lawyer at the Council of State and the Court of Cassation, lawyer at the Saint-Etienne university hospital center,
– the representative of the Minister of Health, Family and People with Disabilities,
Considering that under the terms of article L. 521-2 of the code of administrative justice: “Seized of a request in this sense justified by the urgency, the judge of the summary proceedings can order all measures necessary to the safeguard of a fundamental freedom to which a legal person governed by public law has, in the exercise of one of its powers, seriously violated and manifestly unlawful “;
Considering that it results from the instruction that Ms. Valérie Feuillatey, hospitalized on July 28, 2002 in the post-operative intensive care unit of the Saint-Etienne hospital center, informed orally and then confirmed in writing that due to the convictions that are hers as Jehovah’s Witness, she refused, whatever the circumstances, the administration of any blood product; that the doctors of the hospital center, considering that recourse to a blood transfusion was necessary to safeguard the life of the patient, whose condition was developing in conditions which presented a short-term vital risk, nevertheless carried out such an act on August 5, 2002; that Mrs. Feuillatey and her sister then seized, on August 7, 2002, the judge of summary proceedings of the administrative court of Lyon asking him, on the basis of the provisions of article L. 521? 2 of the code of administrative justice, to order the hospital center not to proceed in any case to the forced administration of a blood transfusion on the person of the person concerned; that, by its order of August 9, 2002, the judge of summary proceedings enjoined the hospital to refrain from carrying out blood transfusions on the person of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey; that it however specified that this injunction would cease to apply if the patient “came to be in an extreme situation involving a vital prognosis”; that the applicants appeal against this order in so far as it contains such a reservation; order the hospital center under no circumstances to forcefully administer a blood transfusion to the person of the person concerned; that, by its order of August 9, 2002, the judge of summary proceedings enjoined the hospital to refrain from carrying out blood transfusions on the person of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey; that it however specified that this injunction would cease to apply if the patient “came to be in an extreme situation involving a vital prognosis”; that the applicants appeal against this order in so far as it contains such a reservation; order the hospital center under no circumstances to forcefully administer a blood transfusion to the person of the person concerned; that, by its order of August 9, 2002, the judge of summary proceedings enjoined the hospital to refrain from carrying out blood transfusions on the person of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey; that it however specified that this injunction would cease to apply if the patient “came to be in an extreme situation involving a vital prognosis”; that the applicants appeal against this order in so far as it contains such a reservation; the summary judge ordered the hospital to refrain from carrying out blood transfusions on the person of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey; that it however specified that this injunction would cease to apply if the patient “came to be in an extreme situation involving a vital prognosis”; that the applicants appeal against this order in so far as it contains such a reservation; the summary judge ordered the hospital to refrain from carrying out blood transfusions on the person of Mrs. Valérie Feuillatey; that it however specified that this injunction would cease to apply if the patient “came to be in an extreme situation involving a vital prognosis”; that the applicants appeal against this order in so far as it contains such a reservation;
Considering that article 16-3of the Civil Code provides: “The integrity of the human body can only be affected in the event of therapeutic necessity for the person. / The consent of the person concerned must be obtained beforehand except in the case where his condition makes it necessary to therapeutic intervention to which he is not able to consent “; that under Article L. 1111-4 of the Public Health Code, in the wording given to it by the law of March 4, 2002 relating to the rights of patients and the quality of the health system: “Anyone takes decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information and recommendations he provides. / The doctor must respect the person’s wishes after having informed him of the consequences of his choice.
Considering that the right for the adult patient to give, when he is able to express it, his consent to medical treatment takes on the character of a fundamental freedom; that, however, doctors do not respect this fundamental freedom, as it is protected by the provisions of Article 16-3 of the Civil Code and by those of Article L. 1111-4 of the Public Health Code, a serious and manifestly illegal attack when, after having done everything to convince a patient to accept essential care, they perform, with the aim of trying to save him, an act essential to his survival and proportionate to his condition; that recourse, under such conditions, to an act of this nature
Considering that it follows from the foregoing that Ms. Valérie Feuillatey and Ms. Isabelle Feuillatey, wife Gatt are not justified in maintaining that it is wrong that, by the contested order, the summary judge of the administrative court of Lyon, to which it was for, contrary to what the applicants maintain, to determine the limits of the injunction which he formulated, decided that the injunction which he addressed to the university hospital of Saint-Etienne to refrain from proceeding to blood transfusions on the person of Ms. Valérie Feuillatey would cease to apply if the person concerned were to find herself in an extreme situation involving a life-threatening prognosis; that it is, however, necessary to add to the reservation mentioned by the summary judge that
O RDON :
——————
Article 1 : Before resorting, if necessary, to a transfusion under the conditions indicated in article 2 of the order of the summary judge of the administrative court of Lyon dated August 9, 2002, it is the responsibility of the doctors of the hospital center University of Saint-Etienne on the one hand to have done everything possible to convince the patient to accept essential care, on the other hand to ensure that such an act is proportionate and essential to the survival of the patient. interested.
Article 2 : Article 2 of the order of the summary judge of the administrative court of Lyon dated August 9, 2002 is reformed in the sense indicated in article 1 of this decision.
Article 3 : The remainder of the conclusions of the request of Ms. Valérie Feuillatey and Ms. Isabelle Feuillatey, wife Gatt is rejected.
Article 4 : This decision will be notified to Mrs. Valérie FEUILLATEY, to Mrs. Isabelle FEUILLATEY, GATT wife, to the university hospital of Saint-Etienne and to the Minister of Health, Family and Handicapped Persons.
