ECHR rules Irish human rights violated by abortion ban

panda100

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland violated the rights of a woman with a rare form of cancer who travelled to the UK for an abortion.
In a judgment delivered in Strasbourg this morning, the ECHR concluded Ireland had breached the woman's right to respect for her private life given the failure to implement the existing Constitutional right to a lawful abortion in Ireland.
The woman had feared her cancer would relapse as a result of her pregnancy. In Irish law, an abortion is permissable if there is a risk to a woman's life.
The court found that the only non-judicial way to determine the risk to a woman's life is the ordinary medical consultation between the woman and her doctor, but that this was ineffective.
It also found that the courts in Ireland were not appropriate for the primary determination of whether a woman qualified for an abortion.
The judgment also stated it was unclear how Irish courts would enforce a mandatory order for a doctor to carry out an abortion, given the lack of information given to the ECHR by the Govenment regarding lawful abortions carried out in Ireland.
The court also pointed out there had been no explanation as to why the existing Constitutional right to an abortion had not been implemented to date.
The woman was awarded €15,000 in damages.
As the rulings of the court are binding, it is now likely the Government will have to implement a woman's right to an abortion if her life is at risk.
It is understood that the judgment is now being considered by the Department of Health and the Attorney General.
The court found that the rights of two other women who had taken cases had not been violated.

I see this as very positive news, that will enforce the government to legislate and rethink our archaic abortion laws.

Full ruling is here: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=14&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=63604451&skin=hudoc-en

Bullseye1

Wasn't there a vote on this? Democracy?

The_Minister

All this does is make us enforce the law that we (the people) already voted in, but no-one had the balls to put forward.

I'm glad the alcoholic lost though.

matrim

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Wasn't there a vote on this? Democracy?

Yes there was and the ECHR is going to force the government to apply the result of that democratic vote and bring in a law that the people voted for. That being the right to have an abortion when the mothers life is in danger

Jules

It's one thing i never understood about the Irish mentality regarding abortion. If you don't want to have one .. don't. But who are we to take away someone elses right to choose.

FoxT

Another step in the right direction.

At this rate, give it another 50 years or so & Ireland may eventually have a liberal, rational, moral, and humane approach to this issue.

eamo12

panda100 wrote: »

I see this as very positive news.

Not for the unborn it isn't.

Jules

Look it's down to what people believe. Some people say life begins at conception some say its just a ball of cells. Some say 6 weeks, 3 months whatever! If it is not for you fair enough. It is your choice. But it is a absolute disgrace that women, in there hundreds or even in their ones and twos have to leave this country every year to have an abortion. We live in a small and unbelievable backwards country.

coffee_cake

eamo12 wrote: »

Not for the unborn it isn't.

Yeah, I'm sure the unborn were all really enjoying threatening a woman's life and possibly dying themselves as a result.
:rolleyes:

Jules wrote: »

Look it's down to what people believe. Some people say life begins at conception some say its just a ball of cells. Some say 6 weeks, 3 months whatever! If it is not for you fair enough. It is your choice. But it is a absolute disgrace that women, in there hundreds or even in their ones and twos have to leave this country every year to have an abortion. We live in a small and unbelievable backwards country.

It's not even an abortion issue: it's an abortion where the woman's life is at risk issue.
Shouldn't be an issue at all.

The_Minister

Jules wrote: »

It's one thing i never understood about the Irish mentality regarding abortion. If you don't want to have one .. don't. But who are we to take away someone elses right to chose.

Really?

If you believe that the foetus is human or quasi-human or has some rights at all, then you can't just turn around and close your eyes when they are being killed - it's like (with a large amount of hyperbole) saying "Fine if you don't want to keep slaves / have sex with children, but don't interfere with my choice".

When a large part of society think that these foetuses qualify as humans, then the answer can not simply be "mind your own business, because I don't see it as a baby"; if they truly believe in the humanity of an unborn baby, then they are bad people if they let you kill it.

FoxT

There are lots of unborn people, for whom this could transpire to have been very good news indeed, by the time they grow up

Breezer

I'm a bit confused here, hopefully someone can clear this up for me. Would I be right in saying that:

- We already had common law (case law) from the 'X' case saying that a woman can have an abortion in Ireland if there is a real and substantial threat to her life (as opposed to her health).

- We also had a referendum reaffirming that viewpoint amongst the people.

- What we didn't have was legislation stating this.

- Therefore this woman, in order to obtain an abortion in similar circumstances, had to take her own court case.

And now the ECHR has ruled that the Government needs to implement in legislation the same decision we already made years ago?

rainbow kirby

Breezer wrote: »

And now the ECHR has ruled that the Government needs to implement in legislation the same decision we already made years ago?

That's basically it. *sigh*

Breezer

rainbow kirby wrote: »

That's basically it. *sigh*

I'm reading the judgement now, should've done that first, sorry. But yeah, that seems to basically be the case, I just got the order of events mixed up.

rainbow kirby

Amazing how it seems to always take outside intervention for any sort of socially progressive law to be passed in this country...

LittleBook

1983 – Eighth Amendment – Constitutional ban on abortion

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

A pre-emptive measure to prevent the Irish Supreme Court from inferring an implicit right to abortion in the Constitution (i.e. judicial review) as had happened in the US “Roe vs. Wade”.


1992 - Attorney General vs. X

The Supreme Court … held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

November, 1992 – Twelfth Amendment (failed) – Abortion restrictions (aka the "substantive issue")

It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.


November, 1992 – Thirteenth Amendment – Established the right to travel for an abortion

November, 1992 – Fourteenth Amendment – Established the right to information on Abortion

2002 – Twenty-Fifth Amendment (failed) – Abortion restrictions :

aka The Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act would, among other provisions, have:

- Defined abortion as the destruction of unborn life after implantation in the womb.
- Permitted abortion where necessary to prevent loss of life other than by suicide.
- Reiterated that the right to freedom of travel is not affected by the ban on abortion.
- Made an unlawful abortion an offence punishable by up to twelve years in prison.

No clear result or consensus has emerged. In theory, abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the woman. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dáil Éireann to legislate on this, however no political party has risked it, and in the meantime, while it is legal in theory, the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion.

Wikipedia Article - Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

European Convention on Human Rights

ARTICLE 8

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The opinion of the Roe [vs Wade] Court ... asserted that the "right of privacy ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

If any of this is incorrect, please let me know and I'll look again.

caramolly

The_Minister wrote: »

All this does is make us enforce the law that we (the people) already voted in, but no-one had the balls to put forward.

I'm glad the alcoholic lost though.

Eh - When did we vote this in exactly? The X Case decision was reached by a few judges. It's because the Irish People are consistently in favour of protecting the right to life that we don't have abortion.

caramolly

matrim wrote: »

Yes there was and the ECHR is going to force the government to apply the result of that democratic vote and bring in a law that the people voted for. That being the right to have an abortion when the mothers life is in danger

The Irish people have never voted for abortion and the ECHR decision is not binding on Ireland. RTE have a load of egg on their face for reporting that it was this morning.

See Professor William Binchy's remarks on the case today http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/pages.php?id=161

caramolly

Jules wrote: »

It's one thing i never understood about the Irish mentality regarding abortion. If you don't want to have one .. don't. But who are we to take away someone elses right to choose.

Who are we to take away someone else's right to life?

cazzak79

i was going to start a thread myself but seeing as theres already one.
it should be upto a woman whether to get an abortion or not.
especially if its a result of a rape. the age of the girl ie a 14 old girl having a baby or if there is something wrong with either the baby or the women.
we are all adults well most of us havent we the right to decide?

Sardonicat

The_Minister wrote: »

Really?

If you believe that the foetus is human or quasi-human or has some rights at all, then you can't just turn around and close your eyes when they are being killed - it's like (with a large amount of hyperbole) saying "Fine if you don't want to keep slaves / have sex with children, but don't interfere with my choice".

When a large part of society think that these foetuses qualify as humans, then the answer can not simply be "mind your own business, because I don't see it as a baby"; if they truly believe in the humanity of an unborn baby, then they are bad people if they let you kill it.

Are they also bad people to allow the mother to die if her life is placed at risk by continuing the pregnancy? The appropriate people to make this call are medical professionals in tandem with the pregnant woman concerned. As thing stands there are no guidelines in place to guide health professional on the legality of this issue at the moment (as far as I know, if anyone knows differently, please correct me), nor have the ethical considertations been hammered out to protect health care workers who would be against abortion in all instances.(Again, I am open to correction on this).

Stheno

Sardonicat wrote: »

Are they also bad people to allow the mother to die if her life is placed at risk by continuing the pregnancy? The appropriate people to make this call are medical professionals in tandem with the pregnant woman concerned. As thing stands there is no legislation in place to guide health professional on the legality of this issue at the moment (as far as I know, if anyone knows differently, please correct me), nor have the ethical considertations been hammered out to protect health care workers who would be against abortion in all instances.(Again, I am open to correction on this).

Changed your post which I largely agree with to highlight the current problem, in the case of a risk to life of the mother, there is no legislation to guide medical professionals.

This is what the ECHR ruled on today, nothing else, but the fact that where there is a substantive risk to the life of the mother, Ireland needs to legislate for that in the event of the mother seeking an abortion.

As for the ethical objections of healthcare workers, imo that's outside the scope if abortion is legislated for in any circumstance, those who choose to work in healthcare must abide by that legislation, much as those healthcare workers who are pro choice/abortion must abide by the current (lack of) legislation

Sardonicat

Stheno wrote: »

Changed your post which I largely agree with to highlight the current problem, in the case of a risk to life of the mother, there is no legislation to guide medical professionals.

This is what the ECHR ruled on today, nothing else, but the fact that where there is a substantive risk to the life of the mother, Ireland needs to legislate for that in the event of the mother seeking an abortion.

As for the ethical objections of healthcare workers, imo that's outside the scope if abortion is legislated for in any circumstance, those who choose to work in healthcare must abide by that legislation, much as those healthcare workers who are pro choice/abortion must abide by the current (lack of) legislation

Well, I believe there is a little ethical leeway available to Dr.s who disagree on personal moral grounds to certain treatments. Can they not refuse to treat so long as they refer to someone who will in an appropriate timeframe? This is a bit off topic, so apologies.

Stheno

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, I believe there is a little ethical leeway available to Dr.s who disagree on personal moral grounds to certain treatments. Can they not refuse to treat so long as they refer to someone who will in an appropriate timeframe? This is a bit off topic, so apologies.

Ah sorry I misinterpreted your post.

I took it to be akin to the marriage registers (sp?) in the UK who refused to conduct civil ceremonies in the UK for homosexual couples due to their personal beliefs.

Different imo to a doctor saying " on ethical grounds I am unwilling to advise you, but will offer you several referrals to colleauges who will be willing to explore your issues" etc.

Does that make sense?

Sardonicat

Stheno wrote: »

Different imo to a doctor saying " on ethical grounds I am unwilling to advise you, but will offer you several referrals to colleauges who will be willing to explore your issues" etc.

Does that make sense?

Perfect sense. I'm wondering will this be the case for women seeking abortion if the pregnancy threatens her life? What if her life is at risk but she objects to abortion on moral grounds and refuses? I do believe that a health professional has a right to have his/her own ethical beliefs protected but also has a duty of care. It's a difficult balance to strike and a position I don't envy.

Wolfe Tone

misleading thread title is misleading.

Wolfe Tone

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Amazing how it seems to always take outside intervention for any sort of socially progressive law to be passed in this country...

Murder is very socially progressive!

Stheno

Sardonicat wrote: »

Perfect sense. I'm wondering will this be the case for women seeking abortion if the pregnancy threatens her life? What if her life is at risk but she objects to abortion on moral grounds and refuses? I do believe that a health professional has a right to have his/her own ethical beliefs protected but also has a duty of care. It's a difficult balance to strike and a position I don't envy.

I think your argument is akin to e.g a Jehovah's Witness not wanting a blood transfusion. If you take that view, then the courts would possibly intervene as they have in the past, but even as a member of the judiciary I would find that a very very hard call to make.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Murder is very socially progressive!

Post reported, your view is more suited imo to a debate in Humanities, it's more to do with abortion itself than the ruling today which is what is being discussed here (and I must say in a very civilised and non emotional way)

Wibbs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Murder is very socially progressive!

Can we please ease back on the emotive stuff? I get it's an emotive subject but let's try to steer a more objective line if we can. Thanks

LegacyUser

The ECHR's ruling today brings abortion back into the public spotlight and I'm glad to see this lively yet civilised discussion on the matter.

The most glaring thing about today's ruling is the fact that Miss C was afraid that being pregnant would result "in a relapse of her cancer". There has never been a known case of pregnancy inducing cancer in a woman. Likewise, aborting the child does not reduce the risk of a relapse.

People are sometimes under the impression that if a woman is pregnant in Ireland she cannot be treated for any other condition (life-threatning or otherwise). This is simply untrue. In Ireland, a pregnant woman is treated as two patients - the woman and the baby. Doctors and all other healthcare professionals are required to care for both patients and must try, in so far as possible, to protect the lives of both mother and child. Had Miss C suffered a relapse of cancer, she would have been able to be treated in Ireland and continue her pregnancy.

On tonight's Prime Time lawyer Julie Kay referred to "life-saving abortions". No such thing exists - abortion does not cure acute illnesses; it does not save the woman's life. There has been much talk about abortion in the case of a woman suffering sever depression. Similarly to other acute conditions, an abortion does not rid a woman of depression or suicidal tendencies. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite; women who have had abortions have a much higher suicide rate.

Ireland is one of the top three countries in the world when it comes to maternal and infant health according to the WHO (World Health Organisation). This has been attributed to our pro-life stance.

It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being.
1. It is a medical fact that life begins at fertilization (conception), not an opinion.
'After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... it is plain experimental evidence.' Dr. jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics at University of Descartes
2. A fetus is not a "clump of cells" - his or her heart begins beating between day 21 and day 28 of pregnancy; before most women would even know they were pregnant. The child shows brain waves from six weeks.


It's often said that you can tell a lot about a nation when you look at how they treat the weakest people in society. It is our duty as citizens to protect these groups in society. The unborn have no voice; they have no choice when it comes to abortion. We need to stand up for them and speak out on their behalf, even when it's unpopular and even in the face of discouragement.

Jules

caramolly wrote: »

Who are we to take away someone else's right to life?

Like i said it all comes down to belief as to when "life" begins. PERSONALLY i dont see cells dividing as being a "life" with self awareness and feeling etc. But still to say abortion is not for me, but i would never take away someone elses right to choose.

And as i said who are we to questions a persons beliefs and rights to choose.