2014. október 19., vasárnap
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.