An unknown Hungarian trial...
Unorthodoxly my newest blog
entry will process a small, unknown Hungarian trial. This case is a part of an
average Hungarian family’s life. I strongly believe that even this small trial
certainly played an important role in the family’s life. Although the case
study will be much shorter than my previous entries were, I found the case
interesting and instructive.
On the following link you are
able to find my previous blog entry dealing with the trial of Conrad Murray:
In 2013 a couple wanted to
find a preschool for their child. The boy suffered from diabetes but thanks to
the developed healthcare and medical knowledge this disease can be easily cured.
The preschool denied the acceptance of the boy and their reason was that the
workers in the school cannot be bound with such great responsibility. The
parents tried to convince the leadership of the preschool by noting that they
will give the daily insulin dose at home for their child and only 3 blood sugar
measurements will be required from the workers which wouldn’t take more than
couple of minutes. The representatives of the school did not change their
minds. They declared that no such responsibility can be imposed on the workers
of the preschool...
The parents decided to bring the case into the court. The
main trigger for this step was a medical expertise. They lost the trial at the primary level because the
court did not accept their accusations. The main points of their charges were
the following: dozens of children who were suffering from serious syndromes
were accepted to the institution (Down- syndrome for example), and the
preschool violated the human rights of their children – his right to
egalitarianism was diminished.
The family appealed to the
court. The charges were the same. Furthermore the parents questioned the reliability
of the medical expertise written by the doctor of the preschool. The one-sentence long response of the doctor
can be hardly considered as a detailed medical expertise – it was the
following: “I completely agree with the
aforementioned reasons (the reasons were the answers of the preschool
regarding the application)”. By this time the preschool (ran by the state) had
offered a possibility for the family – they will create a day care opportunity
for the small boy- but this offer had been only declared after the trial had
already started. The family already signed their child into a private
preschool. Finally, after months of debating
the family won the trial. The court declared that the preschool violated the
boy’s right to egalitarianism and adjudged an amount of compensation fee for
the parents.
In my opinion everybody has
the right of egalitarianism, and education (in the present society) is
considered as a basic human right for everyone. The court did not consider the
human rights of the child even though this law stands above all in every member
states of the United Nations. By taking away the right to education from the
child, the preschool took away one of the most important human rights of the
child. The court, in this case, recreated the balance in this environment and
defended the rights of an average person. I strongly believe that the most
important duty of the court is to help those who are in need.
Hopefully I was able to call
the attention for the importance of those human rights, which were not considered
in the first trial. Furthermore I strongly hope that I managed to transmit an
interesting and comprehensive picture about the case.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése