I'm just watching Casualty (don't judge me :p)...but it raised an interesting point on legal ethics.
The pregnant female patient refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs. The doctors had to respect this refusal, and she died.
I am just thinking over a bit of a tentative theory, and i'm hoping someone will tell me why i'm wrong. The Pretty case tells us that the right to life (Article 2) in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) doesn't give rise to a right to die. The doctors are defending peoples right to live (are they?), and fulfilling their duty to their patients. By standing by and watching their patient die, are the doctors breaching the patients Article 2 right to life? Bearing in mind that Article 2 does not say that religious belief is an exception to the right to life. I acknowledge that there is a right in Article 9 to religious belief, but i think most people would agree that Article 2 is a higher generation right that Article 9.
Speak to me!