Assisted Suicide

Gbear · 07-02-2013 1:15pm #1

I heard again on the news about the women with some horrible degenerative disease going to the courts to try to find out if her husband would be prosecuted if he helps her to die with some dignity.

There was a similar case in the UK recently.

Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

If the law is as it is, then what can the judges do? Even if they agree with assisted suicide it's not their job to write laws so their hands are tied. Even if a law was immoral it would be a dereliction of their duties not to enforce it.

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

keane2097 · 07-02-2013 1:27pm

They're arguing that denying them the right to die in a manner of their choosing is unconstitutional, the courts are the correct place to do that.

robindch · 07-02-2013 1:29pm

Gbear wrote: »

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

Instead of referring to "assisted suicide", perhaps they should refer to "liquidation" and see what legislation the government can sign into law overnight.

eviltwin · 07-02-2013 1:34pm

Gbear wrote: »

I heard again on the news about the women with some horrible degenerative disease going to the courts to try to find out if her husband would be prosecuted if he helps her to die with some dignity.

There was a similar case in the UK recently.

Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

If the law is as it is, then what can the judges do? Even if they agree with assisted suicide it's not their job to write laws so their hands are tied. Even if a law was immoral it would be a dereliction of their duties not to enforce it.

I haven't noticed any great push to get the government to change the legislation rather than just looking for ways to evade the law as it stands.

I suppose it depends on how you view the person who would assit? Do you think the partner or family of that woman, if they were to help her die, would be murderers? Should they be sent to prison? I don't but the law would see it differently. I think if someone wants to die in most cases they can so why should someone be denied that just because they have a disability that prevents them doing it themselves.

Mousewar · 07-02-2013 1:34pm

Suicide is no longer illegal. A severely disabled person is unable to commit suicide because of their disability. Therefore, they are arguing that they are unfairly discriminated against by the law since it is illegal for someone to help them.

Gbear · 07-02-2013 1:43pm

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2013 2:23pm

Gbear wrote: »

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

We've been waiting 20 years for them to legislate for X - and in that case a Referendum instructed them to.

Last night they rushed through legislation which states "The common good may require permanent or temp interference with the rights, incl property rights, of persons" but the Constitution states
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

The State sent around 25,000 women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries to be illegally detained and used as slave labour but according to the Constitution
" 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

That's not to mention the clause that says the State shall not endow any particular religion yet 93% of our State funded primary schools have a Roman Catholic ethos

What on Earth makes you think Irish governments have the slightest interest in clarifying what are and are not the rights of a citizen under the Constitution when they don't even uphold the protections already in the Constitution?

Beruthiel · 07-02-2013 2:28pm

Gbear wrote: »

I
Why do these people always seem to go the the courts to try to fix this?

Because sometimes it works to the betterment of a nation?
(Though when it comes to Ireland, we normally need a kick up the arse from Europe before we pull the finger out).

Most people would prefer to do it in their own country surround by friends and family than have to go off to a foreign country.
It's very expensive to go to Switzerland and get it done, so much money in fact, that it's out of reach for most people.

Gbear · 07-02-2013 2:42pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We've been waiting 20 years for them to legislate for X - and in that case a Referendum instructed them to.

Last night they rushed through legislation which states "The common good may require permanent or temp interference with the rights, incl property rights, of persons" but the Constitution states
"2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

The State sent around 25,000 women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries to be illegally detained and used as slave labour but according to the Constitution
" 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."

That's not to mention the clause that says the State shall not endow any particular religion yet 93% of our State funded primary schools have a Roman Catholic ethos

What on Earth makes you think Irish governments have the slightest interest in clarifying what are and are not the rights of a citizen under the Constitution when they don't even uphold the protections already in the Constitution?

Oh, nothing at all, but even so I doubt it's because of cynicism about the government that this isn't the subject of lobbying of TDs.

My entire question is that if it seems so opaque, and not just in Ireland, is the law clear enough itself and should we not be trying to have it changed?

If this current challenge fails will the next step (although not one the poor woman in question will be able to pursue) be about chaning the legislation?

keane2097 · 07-02-2013 3:00pm

Gbear wrote: »

Oh, nothing at all, but even so I doubt it's because of cynicism about the government that this isn't the subject of lobbying of TDs.

My entire question is that if it seems so opaque, and not just in Ireland, is the law clear enough itself and should we not be trying to have it changed?

If this current challenge fails will the next step (although not one the poor woman in question will be able to pursue) be about chaning the legislation?

Legislation is only enacted based upon the constitution. The courts have to first clarify the constitution, if the High Court decided that denying assisted suicide was unconstitutional then legislation would need to be enacted to reflect this.

As it stands, court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is not unconstitutional to deny this right so not only is there no legal need to legislate for it, to attempt legislation which would be contrary to the constitution on the matter would be illegal.

There are lots of great descriptions of the interplay between court/cabinet and constitution/legislation in the abortion thread, you should read up there. It's not a case that you have two options open, lobby the politicians or go to court, the politicians can only act on the instructions of the court re:interpretation of the constitution.

MrPudding · 07-02-2013 3:17pm

Gbear wrote: »

It just seems like the government could make an amendment more easily than this legal quagmire.

Instead of having to look for a loophole (I would include unconstitutionality in that) would it not be easier for the government to clarify things?

Tbh I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process of how amendments are made into law but if it's a bit of a murky issue could the government not legislate on it more robustly?
Now fair enough if the issue was raised and the government hid because of the potential opposition to it, but it doesn't even seem to have been raised as an issue for them to hide from.

I think the government leaves the legal quagmire in place intentionally.

The areas of law where we tend to see these issues are usually of a controversial nature, with people holding particular views and holding them quite strongly. For the government they tend to be a no win activity. Which ever way they go they will pi$$ off a portion of the electorate.

I think it is simply easier for them to hind behind the courts and avoid alienating a portion of their votes. That said, pressure builds and eventually they will have to do something.

MrP

LittleBook · 07-02-2013 3:21pm

Just to add to what keane already said ... if the woman you're referring to is Marie Fleming, I think the reason you heard it on the news again is that she lost her appeal to the High Court so she lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court which will be heard in a few weeks.

East Coast FM News wrote:

The Supreme Court has been told that Wicklow woman Marie Fleming's landmark, right-to-die appeal is ready to proceed next month. The former UCD lecturer who is living in Arklow is suffering from MS and is attempting to overturn the State's ban on assisted suicide. The Court was told that both sides are in the final stages of lodging papers in the case, which will be heard on the 26th February. It's understood seven Supreme Court Judges will hear the challenge, given the importance of the issues at stake.

I wish her the best of luck, she's an amazing woman. Chances are if there ever is any legislation put in place, it will be too late for her and she knows this. But instead of spending her last months quietly with her family, she's putting herself through this for the next people who will need assistance to end their lives.

Sarky · 07-02-2013 6:52pm

It'd be nice if this was the case that changed things. I know a guy who has his plan to "emigrate to Switzerland" if his current cancer/paralysis makes life too unbearable. Be so much cheaper and comforting to the family and friends if he were allowed to do it here.

Lingua Franca · 07-02-2013 7:44pm

I wish it could be changed, I also have experience with a family member who was attempting to get to Dignitas to escape an excruciating fate (emphesyma + MS, thankfully a heart attack took him before those two diseases destroyed him) and the mother of my son's schoolfriend here in the Netherlands was able to choose when to end her life when she was dying of breast cancer. It is shocking that people in the most desperate of circumstances still have to fight these court battles. I will never understand the 'keep them alive at all costs" mindset.

Gbear · 07-02-2013 7:50pm

LittleBook wrote: »

Just to add to what keane already said ... if the woman you're referring to is Marie Fleming, I think the reason you heard it on the news again is that she lost her appeal to the High Court so she lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court which will be heard in a few weeks.

I wish her the best of luck, she's an amazing woman. Chances are if there ever is any legislation put in place, it will be too late for her and she knows this. But instead of spending her last months quietly with her family, she's putting herself through this for the next people who will need assistance to end their lives.

Thanks.
I heard it on the radio yesterday but by the time I got home I'd forgotten her name, disease and the court involved.:o

keane2097 wrote: »

As it stands, court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is not unconstitutional to deny this right so not only is there no legal need to legislate for it, to attempt legislation which would be contrary to the constitution on the matter would be illegal.

1) The way I read that is that the government is allowed to deny the right to assisted suicide but not obligated to do so.
Was the ruling that: "court challenges have ended with the ruling that it is unconstitutional to allow the right"?
To me, one seems to allow for the government to maintain the status quo if it wishes but says nothing else while the latter actively prohibits legalising assisted suicide.

2) If a court ruling was to go in a person's favour (Marie Fleming in this case) would that immediately grant them the right to assisted suicide or would it merely allow (or indeed, require) the changing of legislation, which in turn could legalise assisted suicide?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-02-2013 12:21am

Beruthiel wrote: »

Most people would prefer to do it in their own country surround by friends and family than have to go off to a foreign country.
It's very expensive to go to Switzerland and get it done, so much money in fact, that it's out of reach for most people.

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago where the Gardai got wind of someone's plans to go to Switzerland with a dying friend/relative, and warned them they'd be arrested if they proceeded with it?
No crime was to be committed in this country yet they put people in fear of arrest. The gardai were way out of line imho - imposing a moral view not a legal one.

Found it. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

If the gardai took that line with abortion, they could arrest any companion of a pregnant woman leaving the country on the grounds that they might be facilitating an abortion abroad. The right to travel for an abortion has explicit protection in the constitution however, doesn't / couldn't that be applied to euthanasia?

Sons and Lovers by DH Lawrence was published 100 years ago. To this day the mercy killing depicted in the book remains illegal. It is illegal to allow an animal to suffer, but humans are not allowed to ask that their own suffering be ended.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-02-2013 12:43am

It was (rightly) said in 1992 that Ireland was effectively an open prison for pregnant women, until thankfully the X case ruling ended it and the right to travel referendum enshrined that right in constitutional law.

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

My mother is in the end stage of Alzheimer's Syndrome. The end stage that keeps on going. Probably at least 15 years now since the beginning of significant cognitive impairment, it's insidious. What's clear is that it's been almost ten years since she could recognise me or anyone. I don't want to help end her life as I know her strong religious beliefs ran contrary to that, and it's been several years since she could express an opinion on anything.

However the thought of ending up in a similar situation myself is absolutely terrifying. Her father died of the same thing - the highly intelligent and witty man I remember when I was a child was reduced to helplessness by my mid teens. I would like to be able to predetermine a level in cognitive tests below which my life will be painlessly ended. I do not wish to exist in such a fashion myself and I do not wish my relatives to be placed in a position of having to witness me waste away to a shell of a human over perhaps as many as 20 years.

LittleBook · 08-02-2013 10:15am

ninja900 wrote: »

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago where the Gardai got wind of someone's plans to go to Switzerland with a dying friend/relative, and warned them they'd be arrested if they proceeded with it?
No crime was to be committed in this country yet they put people in fear of arrest. The gardai were way out of line imho - imposing a moral view not a legal one.

Found it. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

ninja900 wrote: »

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

And travel agents:

DPP to get file on woman who died of overdose after travel plans halted

It is understood that she was prevented from travelling to the clinic when a travel agent alerted gardaí of her intentions.

What ... a.... ####! :mad:

Ms Forde (51) was found dead at her apartment on June 6th [2011], having taken her own life.

Her body was identified at her home by her sister Catherine Campbell. Gardaí launched an investigation following her death, having previously been made aware that she had intended to travel to Switzerland to attend the Dignitas clinic.

Ms Forde was in the final stages of multiple sclerosis and had been planning to die in an assisted suicide

The inquest was in March last year, I wonder what the verdict was, pretty sure we would have heard if anything other than "misadventure" as returned.

Michael Nugent · 08-02-2013 11:09am

This is a really important issue, and one which governments are reluctant to address despite its impact on people when they are most in need of compassion and empathy.

My wife died of cancer two years ago, and she had made plans to end her own life, with my help, if she needed to in order to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Like most people who make plans to do this, she died naturally in the end. But the peace of mind that she got from knowing that she had the option to decide not to undergo suffering at the end massively increased her quality of life in the final year before she died.

Unfortunately, this option is only open to people who are independently minded enough, and/or have assistance of family, to make preparations for something that is illegal if you are assisted in doing so.

Marie Fleming and her partner Tom Curran are making a very important stand for compassion and understanding and dignity in dying. While the courts will probably uphold the original decision on appeal, it is part of a process of normalising the discussion and ultimately I am confident that the law will change, though it may take some time.

In Marie's case, the High Court effectively gave her the traditional Irish nod and wink hint that the DPP would, in this of all cases, look at the issue compassionately and sensitively if Tom helped her to die.

The High Court also said that the DPP must be informed by the fact that the UK courts have introduced guidelines for deciding whether to prosecute in cases like this.

Tom and I and others have recently started a new lobby group called Right to Die Ireland, which will politically lobby for legislative change once Marie's appeal is over.

We will be supporting the right to choose to continue to live and the right to choose to die peacefully and with dignity, for terminally or seriously ill people who are of sound mind.

You can keep up to date with this campaign at
http://www.facebook.com/RightToDieIreland

MrPudding · 09-02-2013 11:54am

ninja900 wrote: »

It was (rightly) said in 1992 that Ireland was effectively an open prison for pregnant women, until thankfully the X case ruling ended it and the right to travel referendum enshrined that right in constitutional law.

Ireland, thanks to spineless legislators and self-appointed moral guardians in our police force, is today an open prison for the terminally ill unable to end their own lives unassisted.

My mother is in the end stage of Alzheimer's Syndrome. The end stage that keeps on going. Probably at least 15 years now since the beginning of significant cognitive impairment, it's insidious. What's clear is that it's been almost ten years since she could recognise me or anyone. I don't want to help end her life as I know her strong religious beliefs ran contrary to that, and it's been several years since she could express an opinion on anything.

However the thought of ending up in a similar situation myself is absolutely terrifying. Her father died of the same thing - the highly intelligent and witty man I remember when I was a child was reduced to helplessness by my mid teens. I would like to be able to predetermine a level in cognitive tests below which my life will be painlessly ended. I do not wish to exist in such a fashion myself and I do not wish my relatives to be placed in a position of having to witness me waste away to a shell of a human over perhaps as many as 20 years.

i know exactly how you feel. I am looking forward to the same end myself. Getting double fcuked by religious morality, it blocks the stem cell research that might find a cure and stops us from getting help to die.

I always find it funny that humane treatment seems to be reserved for non-humans.

MrP

Readyhed · 06-03-2013 9:12pm

The reason why the government does not act in the case of issues like assisted suicide, abortion or the likes is because at any given point in time the issue is unlikely to affect the vast majority of the electorate.

Unlike topics that affect everyone like taxes, spending cuts etc., votes can be won or lost and careers made or broken by the stance a politician takes on these.

Anyone taking up the case for legislating for assisted suicide will be met by indifference from most people who are healthy and unaffected by the issue or by hostility from the religious self rightious who believe that to force people to suffer pain and indignity is what their "god" wants.

robindch · 29-05-2013 5:44pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is a really important issue, and one which governments are reluctant to address despite its impact on people when they are most in need of compassion and empathy.

Enda announced that it's "not open to" him to commit to to legislate for the right to die:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/kenny-will-not-legislate-for-assisted-suicide-1.1409881

BTW, what's it with a figure of fourteen years (as it is with the abortion legislation)?

Irish Times wrote:

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has rejected calls to bring in new laws allowing assisted suicide.

Tom Curran, partner of terminally ill multiple sclerosis sufferer Marie Fleming attended the Dáil today, as the couple continue their fight for her right to die after being refused by the courts. “By any standards this is an extraordinary case involving an extraordinary woman,” Mr Kenny said. “I believe that if this house were asked to find words to adequately describe the impeccable courage and dignity and competence of Ms Fleming it would probably be rendered mute.”

Independent TD John Halligan called on the Taoiseach to legislate for assisted suicide with necessary safeguards and to allow for the contentious issue to be debated in the Dáil. “I understand the grief of this extraordinary woman and the commitment of her partner and family but it is not open to me to give you the commitment you seek,” Mr Kenny said. Ms Fleming, who was too ill to attend a recent Supreme Court ruling against her right-to-die appeal, was also too unwell to attend the Dáil today.

Court cases of her right-to-die campaign have heard the extent of her condition. She can only move her head and lives in constant pain and cannot swallow. Ms Fleming also suffers choking sessions which she fears will eventually kill her. “All of us have a right to a dignified life and the right to to demand a dignified life but we also have the right to a dignified death,” Mr Halligan said.

“We have the right to a peaceful death. It is everybody’s wish to have a peaceful death. Mr Halligan said the courts had ruled that there is nothing to stop the Government legislating for assisted suicide. Ms Fleming’s partner Mr Curran faces up to 14 years in jail if convicted of helping her to die.

Nodin · 30-05-2013 12:45pm

Not for him, because he's an ignorant thick.

Judge Denham added that there was nothing in the judgment to prevent the
State from introducing legislative measures, with appropriate safeguards, to
deal with cases such as Ms Flemings.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/marie-fleming-loses-supreme-court-righttodie-case-29228686.html

Daemonic · 30-05-2013 1:12pm

“I understand the grief of this extraordinary woman and the commitment of her partner and family but it is not open to me to give you the commitment you seek,” Mr Kenny said.

Please tell me some asked "Why not?"

Mark Hamill · 30-05-2013 2:35pm

Daemonic wrote: »

Please tell me some asked "Why not?"

Or "Can I speak to your manager or someone in charge?"

Galvasean · 30-05-2013 5:26pm

Deeds not words.

The Black Oil · 30-05-2013 6:19pm

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time', amongst other things. Not too sure on the particular cases they cite here, and I haven't spent enough time reading up to come to a particular point of view in general.

This is the article. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61739.htm

gctest50 · 30-05-2013 6:54pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time', amongst other things. Not too sure on the particular cases they cite here, and I haven't spent enough time reading up to come to a particular point of view in general.

This is the article. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/61739.htm

That reads like a real article you put in a food processor and mixed it up with some of the spew from the Iona crowd

"Instead of standing strong, arms linked together as brothers and sisters, the dogma of self-determination separates us, places us in bubbles of isolation, and then offers to kill us – if we want. In today’s Belgium all of us are at risk."

"A self-determination card describes a patient’s final wishes so that the social services know what to do in a terminal illness. There are centres where people can ask questions about how euthanasia can be performed."

"Instead of standing strong, arms linked together as brothers and sisters, the dogma of self-determination separates us, places us in bubbles of isolation, and then offers to kill us – if we want."

PopePalpatine · 30-05-2013 11:33pm

Sir, you must have nerves of a steel. I would've shredded that paper rather than suffer an aneurysm trying to read it.

Hotblack Desiato · 31-05-2013 12:24am

The Black Oil wrote: »

I was reading an article in the Catholic Voice re Belgium's approach to this issue. It was basically stating this shouldn't be allowed 'it's grand, pain medication is improving all the time'

I was brought up to believe that pain and suffering were god's way of telling us something something. Why are they allowing medication to dull his message?!?

robindch · 08-02-2015 4:16pm

Canadian Supreme Court strikes down ban on doctor-assisted suicide

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-doctor-assisted-suicide-1.2223493

CTV News wrote:

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada shifted the goalposts Friday on one of the most fundamental of human laws. In a charter precedent that will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada, the court unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.

The emphatic, unanimous ruling prompted tears of joy and frustration on both sides of the debate, reverberated through provincial health ministries and doctor's offices across Canada, and left skittish federal parliamentarians groping for time to digest the implications.
"The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the nine justices flatly asserted.

The judgment -- left unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court -- gives Parliament a year to draft new legislation that recognizes the right of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable physical or mental suffering to seek medical help in ending their lives. It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness.

And to put an exclamation mark on the ruling, the court awarded special costs against the government of Canada for the entire five-year course of the litigation, less 10 per cent to be paid by the government of British Columbia

[...]

Assisted Suicide

Comments