Human right act 1998 Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Human rightfulness act 1998 - Case Study ExampleThis is a violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights operate of 1998. Secondly, this is in violation of Article 2, as heather and Len are non being given medical checkup attention without their lives being at risk, which they feel go forth happen if they are apart. Finally, this could be viewed as a violation of Article 3, as they are being degraded by non being capable to live their lives in the manner that they wish. Married couples should be permitted to live together and these circumstances are preventing this from occurring. heather mixture and Len should receive immediate legal help in order to address this situation. They mustinessiness be taught hardly what their rights are because people tend to take advantage of those who are not sure exactly what their bear rights are. Heather and Len keep every right to pursue the spiritedness that they desire and should use the Human Rights cultivate to do so.Figuring out act ion that can be taken against Helpful Borough Council is a modify process, especially given the age and the situation of Len and Heather. In previous times, the Human Rights Act did not fan out into private companies that provide a public service, which meant that retirement homes were essentially exempt from these laws. That has changed recently, however, as the elderly have been given more rights with which to fight back. The best thing that Len and Heather can do is have a lawyer come up with a list of the human rights violations that they are experiencing and present them to the Helpful Borough Council. If this does not get the desired reaction from them, then they should speak to Social Services and explain their situation. No number what, Len and Heather will need outside help in order to alleviate this problem, as they must be made aware of the rights that they have, as well as what they can do to protect these rights. on that point are three important sections of the Hum an Rights Act of 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights that must be considered in this particular case. The first comes under Article 8, which protects ones privacy and family life. This means that those who require bulky term care must be allowed to keep their family lives intact. Heather and Len have obviously had a family life together for a long period of time and, therefore, their right to this life is protected. The problem is that this legislation is not applied as much as it probably should be, meaning that these rights are frequently profaned. Heather and Len should be advised to pursue these rights that have been given to them under the Human Rights Act and to take the matter to woo if need be. The fact of the matter is that many elderly people do not know their rights and will simply go along with whatever the carer wants to do with them. This will often lead to situations like with Len and Heather, as Caring Home does not have the right to change their famil y animation arrangement. It is a common recital for Social Services to tell people like Len and Heather that there is nothing they can do and that since they need full time care, that they should take whatever care that they are given. This attitude clearly violated Article 8 and Len and Heather definitely have every right to pursue a living environment that meets their needs. Another section of the Human Rights Act that could be being violated is Article 2, which says that Heather and Len have the right to medical treatment without their lives being put at