The recent much publicised landmark case brought by
terminally ill Marie Fleming to establish a right to assisted suicide in
Ireland raises very profound questions which were given due consideration by a
three judge sitting of the High Court in Dublin. The High Court in a unanimous verdict rejected her request to be lawfully permitted to have assistance in
taking her own life. See Irish Times Report. The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
High Court president Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns delivering
the verdict said,
The absolute ban on assisted suicide does not
disproportionately infringe Ms Fleming’s personal rights under the Constitution
and is wholly justified in the public interest to protect vulnerable people.
Dilution of the ban could open a “Pandora’s box” impossible
to close afterwards, with the risks of abuse “all too real”. The court had
heard “deeply worrying” evidence from doctors that there would be “a paradigm
shift” with “unforeseeable and perhaps uncontrollable” changes in attitude and
behaviour regarding assisted suicide.
Even with the most rigorous safeguards it “would be
impossible to ensure the aged, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted, the
rejected, the lonely, the impulsive, the financially compromised and
emotionally vulnerable would not avail of this option in order to avoid a sense
of being a burden on their family and society”.
In delivering the verdict, which was very clear Mr Justice
Nicholas Kearns issued an unusual recommendation in suggesting that the
Director of Public Prosecutions would adopt a humane and sensitive approach in
the event of assisted suicide occurring in this case.
He said the court, comprising himself, Mr Justice Paul
Carney and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, was “sure” the DPP, knowing the “appalling”
plight of Ms Fleming (59), who is in the final stages of multiple sclerosis,
would adopt a “humane and sensitive” approach.
Ms Fleming’s solicitors wrote to the DPP last August asking
her to set out the factors she would consider in deciding whether to prosecute
for assisted suicide. The High Court agreed with the DPP she cannot set out
guidelines as that would involve her legislating when the Constitution
stipulates making law is solely for the Oireachtas.
However, it said a “different set of affairs” might arise
after any event of assisted suicide and provided there was evidence of
compliance with guidelines set out by the UK DPP in assisted suicide cases. In
those circumstances the DPP was free to exercise her discretion.
