January-09-2013 in Healthcare Law
The absolute ban on assisted suicide was recently re-affirmed in a landmark High Court decision. The decision arose out of the application of a severely disabled woman in the final stages of multiple sclerosis who was seeking to be lawfully permitted to be assisted in taking her own life.
The prohibition on assisted suicide is set out in Section 2.2 of the Criminal law (Insanity) Act 1993 which provides for a sentence of up to 14 years for those who assist in or help procure the suicide of another. The Applicant argued that this blanket ban interfered with her personal rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst the Applicant accepted that it is necessary to protect vulnerable people, she disagreed that an absolute ban on assisted suicide was necessary to achieve that objective. She was seeking a narrow exception in her circumstances as a terminally ill person with full mental capacity who could not take her own life without assistance.
The State contended that whilst the prohibition might be unfair to the Applicant, it was a justified and proportionate measure necessary to protect vulnerable people from involuntary death.
In its judgment, the High Court found that there was no disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s personal autonomy and equality rights by virtue of the ban on assisted suicide and stated that such a ban is wholly justified in the public interest. The Court commended the Applicant’s courage and stated that if it could tailor make a solution to suit her needs alone without any possible implications for third parties or society at large, there might be a great deal to be said for her case but the Court could not be so satisfied.
In reaching its decision, the Court was primarily concerned with the public interest. The Court said that a real risk of removing the ban would be that vulnerable people might avail of the option of suicide in order to avoid a sense of being a burden on their family and society. The three-Judge Court suggested that dilution of the ban could open a “Pandora’s Box” impossible to close afterwards with the risk of abuse “all too real”.
Given the exceptional public importance of the issues raised in the case, the Court awarded costs to the Applicant against the State and the DPP.
Back to Full News