TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 19 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

High Court rejects MS sufferer’s challenge in ‘right to die’ case

Marie Fleming, who suffers from terminal multiple sclerosis, fails in her attempt to have suicide laws declared unconstitutional.

Image: PA Wire

A MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS sufferer has failed in her court efforts to have a legal clause, which would forbid her husband for assisting her in ending her own life, declared unconstitutional.

The High Court has refused an application from MS sufferer Marie Fleming seeking a declaration that sections of laws from 1993 – which decriminalise suicide, but makes it a criminal offence to assist one – was in breach of both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

She also failed in her request to have the Director of Public Prosecutions issue public guidelines outlining the factors that would be taken into account when it was deciding whether to prosecute people under the 1993 laws.

Justice Nicholas Kearns, the president of the High Court, ruled that there was “a profound difference between the law permitting an adult to take their own life on the one hand and sanctioning another to assist that person to that end on the other.”

It added that the DPP did not have the legal discretion to decide when a criminal offence could be ignored, as this would amount to rewriting laws in breach of Article 15.2 of the Constitution.

It further found that the European Convention allowed states to “maintain a complete prohibition on assisted suicide”.

A court-issued summary noted that if the court could “tailor-make a solution which would suit the needs of Ms Fleming alone without any possible implications for third parties or society at large, there might be a good deal to be said” for her claim of a constitutional right to die.

“But this Court cannot be so satisfied,” it said.

Likely to choke on her own saliva

Fleming, 59, from Wicklow, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis 27 years ago and had told the court she was being forced to live in pain and indignity because she was unable to end her life by herself.

The former UCD lecturer told the court that her husband Tom had agreed to assist her in ending her life, but would not do so if he was acting illegally in doing so.

“Tom has promised to help me, only if it’s lawful. Otherwise, I will die a horrible death which could take months or even a year,” she told the court during a six-day hearing in December.

She argued that she was ultimately likely to die by choking on her own saliva if her condition was permitted to deteriorate further in the case that she was not assisted in her request to end her own life.

The State had opposed Fleming’s application on the grounds that the Constitution did not impart a right to die.

Fleming was awarded her costs.

The Criminal Law (Suicide Act) 1993, which decriminalised suicide, makes it a criminal offence to assist someone in ending their life, with jail terms of up to 14 years for offenders.

This clause is on the premise that the clause avoids the possibility of having a vulnerable person’s life ended without their full consent.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (110 Comments)

  • I watched my sister suffer for years with this awfull illness & how cruel to see her dignity & quality of life taken from her. She died peacefully in the end in July of last year.

    Reply
  • Poor woman. As I expected unfortunately.

    Reply
    • Mursh 10/01/13 #

      I agree.. condemned to a slow and painful death. Poor woman

      Reply
    • I am not too familiar with this tragic outcome.
      But what is to stop this couple from going to Switzterland?
      I appreciate that she probably wishes to end her life in her home here in Ireland.
      If she did however decide to end her life abroad, what is the legal consequence for the husband on his return?

      Reply
    • “what is to stop this couple from going to Switzterland?”

      Without any clarification from the DPP on the circumstances under which they would prosecute, her husband could be found to be assisting her suicide simply by helping her to travel to are more humane jurisdiction where human beings are afforded the same compassion as animals that are suffering.

      Reply
    • One thing for sure…I won’t be getting old in this country.
      Religion, legislatures and insular minded people deeply worry me.

      Reply
    • Vicky 10/01/13 #

      Stray Mutt, I believe her husband could be prosecuted for assisting in her suicide if he assists her to travel to Switzerland. Now that the case is in the public eye, they can’t risk travelling without legal ramifications.

      Reply
  • I’m incredibly sad for this woman and her loved ones. IMO this result is the wrong one. Let a person die with dignity and self-determination. I applaud her bravery in attempting to establish this most basic of human rights. I’m so sorry it didn’t work out.

    Reply
  • My heart goes out to her and her husband. To watch a loved one suffer excructiating pain and be unable to help end it legally, is truly heartbreaking, An expected outcome however :-(

    Reply
  • Saddened by this outcome.
    War is legal.
    Putting down an animal in pain is legal.
    Defending your property or premises with potential lethal force is legal.
    In other “civilised” countries, the death penalty is legal.
    To die with dignity, in the comfort of your own home, at a time of your choosing surrounded by people you love so as to avoid an inescapable and painful death? Illegal.

    Reply
  • I suspected that would be the outcome.

    Unfortunate.

    Does have the right to appeal to a higher court?

    Reply
  • My heart is breaking for this lady and her family. She has held herself in such a dignified way and my thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.

    Reply
  • For shame. We keep burying our head in the sand, when it comes to difficult issues that challenge our society’s inherently conservative nature, but surely this cannot go on Indefinitely? We must, as a people, move toward a society where people have the right to choose to live or die, and have full control over their health issues. Are we going to keep exporting this problem aswell? This poor family’s suffering goes on, while the morally superior in our society pat themselves on the back, as the unchanged status quo will allow this injustice to continue. For shame. It seems reality is our enemy, yet again.

    Reply
  • If a cat or dog or any other animal for that matter is in pain and there’s no way to help them in their suffering we put them down. It’s ridiculous that we can’t see past some religious stigma to do the same for humans. Actually, its retarded.

    Reply
  • Brian this is not a joking matter. This woman is seriously in pain and she needs to end it , nothing to do with your god.

    Reply
  • We live in a country that would do more for her dog…

    Reply
  • Lets get this bullsh*t decision changed. Referendum ASAP.

    Reply
  • We live in a backwards country also some of the best medicine to treat MS is illegal in this country!

    Reply
  • Would David Quinn be as quick to apply the same common sense if he himself was suffering as Marie Flemming is or for that matter if those dear to him were. Insensitive at best, cruel at worst

    Reply
  • As expected. Well done to this brave woman for this challenge but the conservative Irish judiciary are never going to make any judgement other than this.

    On another note can I respectfully as that the Journal please stop consistently using “suffer” in relation to disability

    Reply
    • Aldo 10/01/13 #

      Sarah, I think the use of the word suffer is the appropriate word for some one who suffers from MS. I have suffered from this terrible disease for the past 10 years, and suffer you do.

      Reply
    • Thanks Aldo, my comment is in no way intended to denigrate people with MS or their experience of the disease. Of course individuals do suffer from illness or disability but ‘suffering’ is a subjective term and should not be used to describe individuals who are experiencing disability or illness.

      I have seen ‘suffer’ used on this website to describe mental illness, intellectual disability and other disability and it is not appropriate.

      My point on language was only intended as a secondary one and this woman deserves maximum credit for her bravery, albeit ultimately to no avail other than to raise this issue in the Irish consciousness.

      Reply
    • Well said Sarah. Disability doesn’t define the person and in most cases it is not ‘suffered’.

      Reply
    • Aldo 10/01/13 #

      Hi Sarah, I take your point and agree that it is used inappropriately in many instances.

      Reply
  • The general consensus of the comments here (Brian Horgan aside) would seem to support this case and let this lady end her life with some dignity. But the persons ruling on this case probably did not want to open up the floodgates once a precedent would have been set, hence the judgement. The wheels are probably (very slowly) in motion on this issue now though, as it has created such a groundswell of support, and, I believe in time the law probably will change, but unfortunatly most likely not in time for Marie Flemming.

    Someone close to me has MS and although not yet as bad as Marie Flemming, another 5-10 years or so will probably see them reach that stage based on their rapid deterioration over the last decade.

    To Brian Horgan, you sound like a christian fundamentalist. Even my own mother, who is deeply religious would not be able to back you up. And as far as I know, the church don’t make or enforce the law in Ireland. Maybe a country run under Sharia law would suit you better.

    Reply
  • I feel so sorry for this woman and her family, a terrible burden for them to bare and at the end of it all she is not allowed to die with her loved ones around her in dignity and with peace. After all she has suffered that is the least she deserves.

    Reply
  • Mjhint 10/01/13 #

    Another woman let down by the Irish system.

    Reply
  • if an animal was sufferin a slow painful death,u would put it out of its misery.why cant human be the same

    Reply
  • Poor woman. I hope someone can find a resolution for her.Irish law is incapable of making a forward thinking judgement and I don’t think this will change any time soon. As for Brian and his comments, everyone is entitled to their opinion but most people online here will back up theirs by leaving their name. His account goes back to a twitter account with no followers and no one following. He is on here for the sole purpose of putting peoples backs up. Just another sad sad troll feeding off the misery of others.

    Reply
  • A very bad decision.
    Religion, it seems, still has far too much of an influence in this country when it comes to progressive thinking.

    This woman, like so many other people, is dying a slow and agonisingly painful death. She should be allowed some dignity in her final days.

    When my father relapsed into a comatose state after the incident which caused his injuries, I was told by the doctors that he wasn’t going to come out of it, and that pulling the plug was an option.

    I had discussed this with my Father in the past (I was going through a really dark phase at the time) and we both agreed that we would not like to left alive on life support if comatose.

    So I pulled the plug.

    Yeah, that sounds cold, but he was basically dead anyway. The only thing keeping him alive was modern technology.
    Which brings me to Marie Fleming. The only thing keeping her alive is modern technology in the form of medication, but there’s only so much painkillers can do to help her. Like any drug, you need more and more over time due to your tolerance building up, while her pain increases over time due to her condition.

    For all we know, my Father was in a peaceful state while in a coma, but he could also have been in agonising pain. We don’t know too much about comas, so we can’t really tell.
    Yet it was legal for me to allow him to commit suicide (in a sense, as we had previously discussed our positions), but this woman has to live on because the Bible said something and others believe that complete and utter crap, and cowardly politicians won’t stand up to the religious fringe (which is all they are these days).

    It’s times like these that this country sickens me (and that’s something I really do not say too often).

    Reply
  • This is ridiculous, how is it that someone can make a decision like this on someone else’s life, it is cruelty in my opinion. The god squad are at it again

    Reply
  • Brian 10/01/13 #

    The Catholic church’s chief spinmeister David Quinn has called it “a good common sense ruling” on his Twitter page. I don’t have to add anything else.

    Reply
  • Brian – You will just like the rest of us end up as worm food when you die. Its pure fantasy to believe that every human , every neanderthal etc that has ever lived is living another life?

    Reply
  • So this is what Monty Python meant by ‘the life of Brian!!’. Figures!!!

    Reply
  • Stupid Nanny State says “NO” shocker!! we are all some plebs for letting the state dictate to us when we all know this makes complete sense!!

    Reply
  • One fear I would have if assisted suicide was allowed is that it could leave it easier for a person to commit murder and claim it was assisted suicide. In a case such as this one it is clear cut and I don’t think any rational person could argue against it but I can’t imagine the safeguards that would be required for allowing assisted suicide

    Reply
    • Yes I would share that fear. A psychiatric assessment and doctors reports stating that the patient has no chance of survival, submitted to a court and the judge has the final say would be one way to deal with it.

      Reply
    • mattoid 10/01/13 #

      In Zurich every assisted suicide is captured on video to prevent subsequent accusations of murder.

      Reply
    • Also, in The Netherlands, a doctor would help you die. The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:
      - the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
      - the patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the
      influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
      - the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
      - there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned
      above
      - the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be
      present
      - the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

      Reply
    • One fear I have of allowing people to drive cars is they might use them to commit murder and claim it was an accident.

      What is it about this issue that leads people to pretend there’s this long list of unsolvable problems that are actually very easy to resolve.

      Legalise voluntary euthenasia and put heft regulation in place. If it were legal we wouldn’t need her husband to help her, she could have a proper medical professional who could could provide a painless and dignified death. Put protocols in place that require evidence that it was voluntary and ensure witnesses are present. Use a system like the one created in Australia where the patient presses the button that instigates the process themselves.

      Reply
  • Our right wingers and the labour yes men, won’t change the laws and show some common sense. They’ll feed us pittance reforms, pittance abortion laws and keep the citizens under their direction for our own good!

    Reply
  • No surprises here.

    Reply
  • The issue is not confined to religion and, in fact, we should ignore any religious bias when framing our laws. Legislators passed this law forbidding assisted suicide primarily to protect people from being ‘disposed of’ by unscrupulous relatives who were after their inheritance – an understandable action in a country where land and property are so highly valued. Taking one’s own life is not the problem – this right is, in fact, undeniable. It is the assistance given to such ends which is criminal. What Ireland, and other nations, need is a recognised framework whereby people who are suffering a painful and undignified death can end their lives in a comfortable, compassionate and loving environment, surrounded by their family and friends, where the risk of prosecution does not exist. It is hard to believe that such a framework cannot be established with sufficient safeguards to prevent euthanasia and also to protect loving partners from prosecution.
    p.s. – Is Brian Horgan a real person ?

    Reply
  • This was always going to be a difficult case. Unfortunately it is always said that hard cases make bad law and this make the situation here.

    One clearly see how a relaxation of the law would be in the interest of people like Marie Fleming who has a clear reason for wanting to end her life in a dignified and peaceful way and who has taken that decision obviously in a rational manner and with the support of her family. It seems perverse to deny her that right and its fairly clear that the judges in this case were deeply affected by her position.

    But the judges have to think about the impact of such a decision on society as a whole and that is where its gets much harder. Once you open this door it may end up with unintended consequences. It would be very hard to try and set boundaries on what could or couldn’t be allowed.

    There are probably many people out there, sick or elderly, who feel that they are a burden on their families. Do we really want a situation where they may consider assisted suicide because they feel guilty about being a burden? We already live in a society where older people feel less valued and marginalised. The worry must be that if the option of assisted suicide was available that many might feel pressured into taking it as way out of depression and lonelines.

    Reply
  • I feel sorry for Ms Fleming, but this is the right decision. This goes far beyond the rights of an individual. A ruling the other way would have had profound implications for disabled people in general.

    Reply
    • How so?

      Reply
    • Because it would devalue the right to self-respect – and indeed the right to respect from others – for disabled people. This is a very real issue, as a contrary judgement would have legally asserted that one life is worth less than another.

      As the State’s counsel noted during the case, groups representing the Disabled are amongst those most fiercely opposed to assisted suicide.

      Reply
    • With a very heavy heart I agree with you DJ, and I think the Court recognised this. If Ms. Fleming were to succeed it would mean an even further decline in the treatment and attitude towards the old and vulnerable in our society who may not be in as difficult a physical predicament as Ms. Fleming, and who with the right and advancing treatment could make significant or partial recoveries. If Ms. Fleming were to succeed it would give our masters a carte blanche to bring in Logan’s Run style policies to get shut of anyone who cannot contribute meanfully to the IMF/FF/FG/EU corporate axis.

      Reply
    • But that would very easily be dealt with by making it only legal in the case where the person is in irrecoverable pain and has expressly declared their will to be assisted to die. I don’t see where the case would have led to disabled or older people being advised of or forced into assisted suicide. Obviously it would take a great deal of care in legal requirements and each case of it should be viewed individually but that’s no reason not to let a person die in peace rather than agony when we have no problem doing it for any other creature on the planet.

      Reply
    • Dj. If a person of sound mind that is confirmed as terminally ill with no hope of a cure or recovery makes a request for assisted suicide and said request is done before professional witnesses such as 2 independent Doctors one being a consultant Psychiatrist I can’t see any issues over the mentally disabled or the aged being affected.

      Reply
    • That’s again a fear for something you can’t proof will ever happen. It’s better to look at countries like The Netherlands and Switserland, where it’s possible to help someone die in a dignified way. It’s not tthat in these countries every disabled person has to fear their life for being terminated.

      Reply
    • I’ve never seen another issue where people so readily leap to invent problems that don’t exist and take a defeatest position on “issues” that are so easily solvable.

      Like all issues where the religious impose their bastardised version of morality on the rest of us, it is very clear which side is right and which is wrong.

      Reply
  • Why doesn’t she just kill herself now while she’s still able?

    Reply
  • God is the only one who has the right to decide whether a person lives or dies. End of conversation.

    Reply
    • By the same token Brian, can I assume that you think it was God who decided to fill up the Roman Catholic Church with evil child abusers?

      Reply
    • She can prove she is dying,can you prove your god?

      Reply
    • @brian Horgan – Sonic the hedgehog is of more reality than this ‘God’ lad.. Do you believe if their was a God that people would be dealt this excruciating pain.. Just stop, will ya?!

      Reply
    • Brian, what if you don’t believe in God?
      Chronic conditions rarely allow a person to die with any dignity, usually the person (and family) undergoes a long and protracted period of suffering, sometimes over weeks or months, sometimes even over years. I hope this woman finds some comfort in the sincerest and heartfelt wishes from most of the Irish citizens for her and her family as they go forward.
      Take your trolling elsewhere Brian, it’s unnecessary and extremely preyful. Offensive in the least.

      Reply
    • Brian she is dying. And very painfully so. Is your God not supposed to be about forgiveness. If so why then can He not forgive her husband in releasing her from her pain and suffering? If an animal was in similar distress would it not be the decent thing to put it out of its misery. Yet when a person with full mental faculties requests the same its denied.

      Reply
    • @Brian Horgan: Which God is that Brian? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Or the God of Brian

      Reply
    • Reg 10/01/13 #

      The decisions and laws of a state should have nothing to do with god. There is no comprehensive proof that any god even exists.

      Reply
    • Accidentally thumbed-up there instead of a MASSIVE thumbs down.

      Reply
    • Sorry ment for Brian & his ‘God’s choice’ comment.

      Reply
    • It doesn’t bother me one bit if you are a believer or not. The fact is that God exists. There are far more believers in the world than non believers. As for him being a forgiving God who should let this woman die, why I ask? She has committed no sin by being sick so he has nothing to forgive. But, her suffering will be taken into account when she passes on. God will decide when that time is. The son of God even suffered on the cross. There was no assisted suicide to help him ascend into heaven. All we can do is pray that this woman either recovers or passes soon.

      Reply
    • Brian, Isn’t it the christian belief that god sent his son, who was also himself, down to earth to die for our sins. And he died by being hung on the cross by Romans, thereby completing the plan he had from the start. Sounds like assisted suicide to me.

      Reply
    • Also Brian, facts aren’t decided by popular opinion, they are demonstrated by evidence. It doesn’t matter if 90% of the world believes in a god, it isn’t a fact until the evidence backs it up. And the very definition of faith is belief without evidence, otherwise it would just be called knowledge.

      Reply
    • “It doesn’t bother me one bit if you are a believer or not. The fact is that God exists.”

      So, wait, being a believer in something makes it a fact?

      Cool, I’ve always wanted a unicorn!! :)

      Reply
    • How puerile!

      Reply
    • You are so full of it Brian.

      Reply
    • “All we can do is pray that this woman either recovers or passes soon”.

      Brian, this extract from your recent post shows how little you know about MS. What kind of recovery had you in mind???

      Reply
    • Brian did not one of the Roman soldiers shove a spear into Jesus as he hung on the cross. That sounds like a mercy killing to me. As it is a known fact that death by crucifixion could take days. One of the reasons the Romans used it.

      Reply
    • The wonderful part about my argument is that the law backs me up. How about those facts! Try to assist someone in suicide and the law sees it as murder. Same thing goes for abortion. People may complain, but go against God and you will do your penance in this life and the next.

      Reply
    • Your comments disgust me.
      I hope she makes the trip to Switzerland where she can die with the dignity that she deserves.
      It is her wish and nobody should have the right to deny her this.
      I do hope that you never experience what she is going through – see if your god will help you then

      Reply
    • There is no God. End of conversation.

      Reply
    • @ Brian Horgan. You should try reading the article specifically this part of it.

      “The Criminal Law (Suicide Act) 1993, which decriminalised suicide, makes it a criminal offence to assist someone in ending their life, with jail terms of up to 14 years for offenders.”

      Looks to me that you got it wrong and the law does not see it as murder. In Ireland, murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

      Reply
    • If I choose to end my life, have an abortion, or make any other move that the church deems a sin then that’s fine… Stay out if it and let GOD judge me for it!! That’s my problem with organized religion… Everybody tries to do god’s job!!! Whether you’re a believer or not, you shouldn’t push your views on anyone!! Religion is like a penis. You can be proud of it but please don’t whip it out and try to shove it down my throat!!

      Reply
    • Brian the wonderful part about living in a democracy is laws can be changed by popular mandate.

      Reply
    • Aldo 10/01/13 #

      Brian, the law may back you up, but the law is an ass, you both seem to be well suited.

      Reply
    • Which god ?

      Reply
    • Typical god botherer. Ignoring all the tough questions. Which God? There are many you know. And I guarantee the majority of believers don’t believe in your one. Did the same God fill the church with paedophiles? Genuinely looking forward to a response Brian.

      Reply
    • Some christian you are Brian. You are the antithesis of what a christian is supposed to be. Your comments are purile and vitriolic and without any evidence of compassion to or understanding of your fellow men and women.

      You say god will judge us for our acts well when you stand before god I am sure this disgusting verbal diarrhea you produce will be remembered by god and you will be cast into the seven pits of hell!

      You give good honest christians a bad name. Vile creature.

      Reply
    • Your god is incompassionate, evil and made in your image.

      Reply
    • I’m afraid Conor Buggy that you are not qualified to comment on Christian matters. Leviticus 20:13 prevents you from having this right.

      Reply
    • Lol good old leviticus again. The jews threw that out of the torah. And of course I qualify to comment about christianity seeing as though I adhere to Christs teachings not roman catholic dogmatic claptrap.

      So lets see, leviticus mmmmm. Hope you arent eating any pork at all. Hope the women in your life are all veiled and at home, hope you havent touched any single women by accident lately, hope ya havent spoken to any non jews lately. If you have done any of those I’ll go and arrange a stoning or burning of you. Now which would you prefer?

      Reply
    • I notice you didnt deny my observation on your complete lack of christian values!

      Reply
    • Jason 10/01/13 #

      @Brian My brain may have exploded from reading your stupid comment. It is not a fact that God exists. A fact needs proof in order to be true. Your proof for God? Oh, that’s right, you have none. You also claim there are more believers than non-believers. Correct. But wait? How many Christians on the planet? 2 billion. How many people on the planet? 7 billion. By using your logic, more people don’t believe in the Christian God than those who do. Again, using your logic, I have proved God does not exist. On to your next point. Jesus suffered on the cross. He did, according to a book. And according to the same book, he died for Christians sins, mainly original sin. Now, I’m correct in saying that your God is all-knowing and all
      powerful. So, let me get this straight. You believe your God created two people. Those two people were then punished by your God for a crime he knew they’d commit, due to his all-knowing super power. Then, a couple of thousand years later, his son died on a cross (he knew that would happen 2 thousands years before) to cancel out the sin that your God knew would be committed by Adam and Eve? And if God is all knowing, he has a plan. Praying will not change that plan. Please reply logically and if possible, without using crazy Mumbo-Jumbo.

      Reply
  • I meant to add to my last comment that the real culprit here is “God” or whatever force of nature allows something like this to happen in the first instance – not the Courts. Human beings were so poorly designed.

    Reply

Add New Comment