K.L. V.

PERU

FACTS:
A 17 years old and pregnant woman (K.L.) was informed that she was carrying an
anencephalic fetus. Her obstetrician explained that with the fetal abnormality, the baby
would die shortly after birth. Due to the risk to K.L.’s health, he advised her to
terminate the pregnancy. K.L. and her mother requested an abortion but the director of
the public hospital refused to authorize it on the ground that under Criminal Code Art.
120, abortions are unlawful where at birth the child would likely suffer physical or
mental defects.
However, under Art. 119 therapeutic abortion was permitted where the life of the
pregnant woman was at risk or the pregnancy risked permanent damage to her health.
Despite the advice of her obstetrician and assessments by a social worker and
psychiatrist on the mental harm continuing the pregnancy would cause, K.L. was
refused a lawful therapeutic abortion with no adequate remedy to challenge the
decision.
After giving birth and seeing the deformities of her baby girl. K.L. was diagnosed with
serious depression. With the help of several non-governmental organizations, K.L.
submitted a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee alleging the refusal to
authorize a therapeutic abortion violated her right to life, right to a private life,
protection against cruel and inhuman treatment, the special protection of her rights as a
minor and non-discrimination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (“ICCPR”).

ISSUE:

Abortion. Whether or not a refusal to authorized a therapeutic abortion amounted to a

violation of K.L’s rights under the ICCPR.

RULING:
The Committee found there had been violation of provisions under the ICCPR
including the prohibition of cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to a
private life, the special protection enjoyed by minors and access to adequate legal
remedy.

They concluded that K.L. should have had access to a therapeutic abortion as her
obstetrician established the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. The hospital director
found the abortion to be unlawful under Article 120 of the Criminal Code which
prohibits abortions where at birth it was likely the child would suffer serious physical
or mental defects. However, K.L. could have been granted a therapeutic abortion
permitted within the law under Criminal Code Art 119 where the pregnancy poses a
risk to the life of the pregnant woman or would cause serious and permanent damage
to her health.
The Committee found the hospital director’s refusal to authorize a lawful abortion
violated her rights under the ICCPR. By denying her an abortion and failing to provide
an adequate legal remedy for her to challenge the decision the State arbitrarily
interfered in her private life.
The Committee explained that the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading
treatment under Article 7 ICCPR is not limited to physical harm but also protects
against mental suffering. The experience of K.L is of particular concern because of her
young age. Minors must be afforded special protection of their rights under Art. 24
ICCPR. However, in the present case, the State failed to provide K.L. with the medical
and psychological care she specifically needed as an adolescent girl.
The Committee did not consider the alleged violation of K.L.’s right to life because a
violation of Article 7 had been found, though a dissenting opinion by Hipólito Solari-
Yrigoyen stated that Peru had also violated the girl’s right to life by placing her life in
great danger.
VASCO vs. QUILL

FACTS:

Dr. Timothy E. Quill, along with other physicians and three seriously ill patients who
have since died, challenged the constitutionality of the New York State's ban on
physician-assisted suicide. New York's ban, while permitting patients to refuse
lifesaving treatment on their own, has historically made it a crime for doctors to help
patients commit or attempt suicide, even if patients are terminally ill or in great pain.
Following a District Court ruling favoring the State of New York, the Second Circuit
reversed and the Supreme Court granted New York certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not New York's ban on physician-assisted suicide violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

RULING:

No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection
Clause, the Court held that New York's ban was rationally related to the state's
legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the
disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their
lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging
the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving
treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements
of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not
deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.
SUMMARY OF REVISED PENAL CODE ARTICLE 256-259

These provisions pertains to the manner of conducting abortion which are the
intentional abortion (256), unintentional abortion (257) abortion practiced by the
woman herself or by her parents (258) and abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
and dispensing of abortive (259). The provisions cited the penalties to be imposed.