Vincent Lambert: A Victory for Disabled Persons, Life, and International Law | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


Victory for Disabled Persons, Life, and International Law

By Gregor Puppinck1558641926967

Early in the morning of May 20th, without waiting for his family to kiss him goodbye one last time, Dr Sanchez sedated Vincent Lambert to profoundly anaesthetize him, and simultaneously removed his hydration and nutrition to provoke his death. His agony, and the distress of his parents, followed live by the French, were to last the whole week.

Yet, last May 3rd, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which had received an application by the Lambert parents at the initiative of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) – the ACLJ’s international affiliate with consultative status at the U.N. – had asked France, as interim measures, to “take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr Vincent Lambert’s enteral nutrition and hydration are not suspended while the Committee is processing his case.

On May 10th, the parents were informed of the refusal of the French government to comply with the U.N. request, and that the euthanasia of their son would start on May 20th. The French Government claimed that the Committee’s request was not binding.

However, as we previously discussed, France has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. The Protocol instructed the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure compliance by States with the Convention, and gave it the power to receive “individual complaints” – such as the application of the Lambert parents – and to request the compliance with interim or protective necessary measures.

On May 17th, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reminded the French Government of its obligations, again indicating that “in accordance with Rule 64 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, the State party has been reminded today take the necessary steps to ensure that nutrition and hydration are not suspended while the Committee is processing his case.”

On the same day, the “Défenseur des droits”, namely the ombudsman responsible for ensuring the application of this Convention in France declared that “the provisional measures requested by the United Nations committees must be respected by the State, at the risk of hindering the exercise of the right of complaint under the Optional Protocol.”

The administrative and district courts refused to protect Vincent Lambert’s life. The administrative court adopted the government’s position, while the district court declared itself incompetent.

Even the European Court of Human Rights, lodged with an emergency application on May 20th, discarded the case in a few hours. It merely said that it saw no new fact likely to reconsider its previous decision of 2015, in which it had opted for the death of Vincent Lambert. In so judging, the ECHR not only abandoned Vincent Lambert once again to death, but also weakened the authority of its own interim measures. It informed the press of its decision 30 minutes before the start of a new hearing of the case, before the Court of Appeal of Paris.

At the start of the hearing before the Court of Appeal, the whole French public opinion was convinced that Vincent was lost. Except his defenders.

After two hours of pleading and two more hours of deliberations, the Court of Appeal gave its judgment: life.

There was then tremendous joy among the supporters of Vincent Lambert, a clap of thunder in the whole media, and consternation among the supporters of Vincent’s death.

The Court of Appeal was convinced by our demonstration of the obligation to respect the interim measures requested by the U.N. It stated in its judgment: “by freeing itself with the execution of the interim measures requested by the Committee, the French State has taken a decision inapplicable to fall within its prerogatives since it undermines the exercise of a right of which deprivation has irreversible consequences in relation to the right to life”.

The Court ordered the immediate restoration of the nutrition and hydration of Mr. Vincent Lambert. Which has now been done.

It is an important victory for disabled persons, life, and international law.

A victory for disabled persons, because Vincent Lambert is neither at the end of his life nor suffering from a serious, an incurable or a degenerative illness, but in a state of altered consciousness after a traumatic brain injury. He is not dying and can still live for many years. According to the testimony of his parents, his friends and leading medical specialists, he breathes alone and has no cardiac assistance; he wakes up in the morning and falls asleep at night. Some of his emotions can be seen on his face. Sunday evening, on the eve of the beginning of the euthanasia, a video showed him crying with his mother.

If he is euthanized, 1,700 other persons in the same state of health could suffer the same fate.

It is also a victory for international law. The authority of the international system of protection of the rights of persons with disability is strengthened. It is certain that if Vincent Lambert’s euthanasia had been completed, France would have been condemned by the United Nations, as other countries already have been. France must not only respect the international Conventions it freely ratified, but it also must interpret them with good faith, in the light of their object and purpose (Vienna Convention, 1969). Yet, refusing to apply interim measures is depriving the Convention and, what is more, its Optional Protocol of their purpose of offering disabled persons an effective legal international protection.

But the fight to defend Vincent Lambert is not yet complete. This decision saved Vincent Lambert from imminent death; it spared the country the sight of a slow agony, but it is not yet final. Other pleas are under process, and the proponents of his death persist in seeking to make him die.

The first priority is to obtain his transfer to a specialized unit. For years, Vincent has been locked up in his room, in a palliative care service for the dying. Several specialized hospitals have offered to host him, but his doctor and his wife both opposed it because they want him dead.

Additionally, another fight is engaged. That of active euthanasia.

Proponents of this practice want the death of Vincent Lambert, to prove that the State now has power over the lives of the weak, and to convince, through his agony, that it is better to legalize euthanasia, fast and painless.

Once again, it is a question of “granting a merciful death to the patients who, according to human criteria, will have been declared incurable after a critical examination of their state of health”, according to the words used by Adolf Hitler in 1939, in his decree establishing the secret program of extermination of persons with disabilities.

We will continue to fight for the right to life and to ensure that Vincent Lambert is not killed.

Save Vincent Lambert’s Life

Pro Life  Signatures


Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

As we aggressively urge the French government to protect Vincent Lambert, have your gift DOUBLED to help us save his and many other lives. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.
Latest in
Pro Life

JSL: Strike 3 for Planned Parenthood at the 9th Circuit

By Jordan Sekulow1566245750245

Planned Parenthood strikes out. As of today, Planned Parenthood no longer qualifies for Title X funds – a 60 million dollar loss. Today on the broadcast, we discussed Planned Parenthood’s losses before 9th Circuit, how the 9th Circuit has changed from being a major ally to the abortion industry,

read more

A Professor's Deceptive Claims on Race, Racism & Abortion

By Harry G. Hutchison1565968764249

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe recently offered a stunningly false claim regarding abortion . He stated: White Supremacists oppose abortion because they fear it’ll reduce the number of white infants and thus contribute to what they fear as non-white “replacement.” Virtually anyone armed with...

read more

President Trump Cuts Planned Parenthood Funding by Millions

By Jordan Sekulow1565732002110

After a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule and victories in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against Planned Parenthood, President Trump is set to cut $60 million dollars in taxpayer funding from the abortion giant’s budget. Today on Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed a big victory...

read more

Protecting the Unborn at Earliest Stages of Pregnancy

By CeCe Heil1565643450557

Once again, we here at the ACLJ are fighting for life. We’re engaged in courts and legislatures across the country supporting and defending pro-life laws that protect the unborn and those who advocate for them. Our latest submission aims to protect the lives of unborn babies at the very earliest...

read more