Right to Die - Appeal Rejected

robindch

The Supreme Court has rejected Marie Fleming's appeal of the High Court's rejection of her request to be allowed to die when she wants to:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/marie-fleming-appeal-on-assisted-suicide-rejected-1.1376352

The SC has been put in a difficult place on this -- they're simply interpreting the text of the Constitution and they're probably right in saying that it doesn't define or permit the derivation of a right to end one's own life, or allow it to be ended at a time of one's own choosing. Also, the SC has explicitly pointed out that similarly, the Constitution doesn't stop the Dail from enacting legislation to allow assisted suicide to take place and it's also suggested that the DPP would act in a "humane and sensible" fashion, if an assisted suicide were to take place. Which I'd have thought was a strong indication of which way the Court is leaning on this. Has the constitutional convention done anything on this yet? It may well be requested if not.

Thoughts?

Nodin

......the political class generally will avoid it like the plague until forced to do otherwise, like some other issues we could think of.

Beruthiel

Nodin wrote: »

......the political class generally will avoid it like the plague until forced to do otherwise, like some other issues we could think of.

Yup.
Not a pair of balls between the lot of them.

I keep saying it, we'll put an animal down that is is dreadful pain and will die anyway. We call it being humane.
But we won't do it for an actual human.

krudler

While suicide is no longer a crime here

wait..was it a crime? who'd be charged?!

Pherekydes

You have no right to die. If the state so decrees, you shall be required to live forever.

Rulings like these will mean people may be more inclined to off themselves well before they reach the endgame.

kylith

krudler wrote: »

wait..was it a crime? who'd be charged?!

You would. They'd dig you up and put you on trial, then execute your corpse.

Unless you survived; then you'd be put on trial and sent to prison to teach you that life is very jolly and thoroughly worth living.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

krudler wrote: »

wait..was it a crime? who'd be charged?!

The issue is around people who need assistance to end their life. The issue is really how the person giving assistance would be left, and if they'd be held legally liable, even if it could be definitively established that they'd only followed the instructions of the deceased.

magicbastarder

or else enda kenny could take a leaf from bertie's book, and have a referendum, thus taking the decision (and thus blame) out of his hands.

have there been any opinion polls of late which measure the public's attitude to right to die?

Knasher

kylith wrote: »

You would. They'd dig you up and put you on trial, then execute your corpse.

In France under Louis XIV, someone who committed suicide would be dragged through the streets face down, and then hung or thrown on a garbage heap, as well as having all of their property confiscated.

I think in Ireland the law against suicide, which was repealed in 1993, came from English common law, where the property of the deceased could be confiscated by the state.

MagicMarker

I think if I were in a position whereby I wanted to end my life due to a terminal and/or debilitating illness, and my efforts to do this legally were constantly rejected. I would, if brave enough and bodily able, probably end up pulling a Thich Quang Duc style stunt in the middle on the Dail.

If they can't allow me to die with dignity, then the fúckers can watch me burn.

tricky D

The legacy of 'every soul, at any price, no matter the suffering' continues as a consequence of so-called christian attitudes to abortion, contraception, euthanasia, assisted suicide. Unfortunately, the decision making processes in this country are still either subject to the tyranny of the majority or poor quality politics.

Akrasia

It's pretty barbaric when you think about it even for a few minutes.

Do the religious types really believe that their God is sitting up in heaven looking down at a terminally Ill person going 'Oh know you ain't getting out of here that easily, your ass belongs to me!"

Even if Euthanasia was legal. the vast majority of terminally Ill people would probably not choose to use it. BUT, the knowledge that it was there if they needed it would be an enormous comfort to them as they face their final days.

Religion is on it's last legs (thank god)

While there will always be some people who will hold on by the tips of their fingers, the majority of children who are born this year will be atheists by the time they leave school. There is too much real information out there for the superstition and pompous ceremony to keep it's grip

For thousands of years the majority of people were illiterate with no access to printed books and the mass was preached in Latin, a language nobody could speak. it was an offence punishable by death to own a bible in your native language for a period of time.

The church tried to maintain their power through maintaining ignorance. Now we're finally free, we can inform ourselves. There is no place for them to hide anymore

kylith

Akrasia wrote: »

It's pretty barbaric when you think about it even for a few minutes.

Do the religious types really believe that their God is sitting up in heaven looking down at a terminally Ill person going 'Oh know you ain't getting out of here that easily, your ass belongs to me!"

If a priest's attitude towards being asked to pray for my grandmother's crippling arthritis is to be believed you're supposed to 'offer it up' as 'a sacrifice' to the 'glory of god'.

*spits*

Dades

Like the "other" issue, it's all about the slippery slope.

Allow this poor lady to slip away with dignity, and next thing you know they'll be storming nursing homes in jackboots.

jetfiremuck

Dades wrote: »

Like the "other" issue, it's all about the slippery slope.

Allow this poor lady to slip away with dignity, and next thing you know they'll be storming nursing homes in jackboots.

Ffs . This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves. Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

Nodin

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Ffs . This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves. Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

So these things are ok in principle, as long as they're done elsewhere. Gotcha.

If they wanted to just "suit themselves", they could have gone abroad and done the nessecary there by now, rather than taking a case in order to aid others.


Considering these are (for the most part) Irish citizens we're referring to, you might explain why they should have to go abroad for such things - specifically in regard to assisted suicide, bearing in mind the costs involved etc.

Corkfeen

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Ffs . This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves. Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

Ehh, many people who are in need of euthanasia aren't physically capable of doing the journey. It's absolutely absurd that people still run by the guideline of 'They can do it, just not here...' Exporting the ill because we're simply afraid of recognising that there are terminally ill people who'd prefer to die when they choose to rather than being forced to live with immense pain that will never go away..

MagicMarker

Not to mention if I helped someone to go abroad for euthanasia, who couldn't have done it on their own, then I myself may face criminal charges.

Delirium

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Ffs . This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves. Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

That's just nonsense tbh. A government shouldn't be just sweep everything under the carpet. What if the countries that provide the services stop providing them? Now we're in trouble because all those people who took the service for granted can no longer avail of it.

Why not suggest shipping kids to foreign countries to receive their education while we're at it? :rolleyes:

lazygal

koth wrote: »

That's just nonsense tbh. A government shouldn't be just sweep everything under the carpet. What if the countries that provide the services stop providing them? Now we're in trouble because all those people who took the service for granted can no longer avail of it.

Why not suggest shipping kids to foreign countries to receive their education while we're at it? :rolleyes:

We could outsource antenatal care and gerontology services while we're at it.

Kiwi in IE

Dades wrote: »

Like the "other" issue, it's all about the slippery slope.

Allow this poor lady to slip away with dignity, and next thing you know they'll be storming nursing homes in jackboots.

Like all the 'other issues'. We will soon live in a world where people will be forcibly married to others of the same sex, foetuses will be compulsorily aborted and euthanasia will be compulsory on ones 65th birthday! This is why we must control people's personal freedoms and not ever let them make their own decisions!

Kiwi in IE

lazygal wrote: »

We could outsource antenatal care and gerontology services while we're at it.

That's not unrealistic. If I were pregnant I would prefer to spend the nine months in a country where unforeseen complications will be dealt with according to my choice and best interests. Not according to whether or not an unviable foetus has a heartbeat. I would seriously weigh up the risk of remaining here against the disruption to our lives spending the term of pregnancy in England or NZ.

jetfiremuck

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not to mention if I helped someone to go abroad for euthanasia, who couldn't have done it on their own, then I myself may face criminal charges.

I would think that most of those issues are safeguarded and are enshrined in that countries legislation where this is facilitated.

jetfiremuck

lazygal wrote: »

We could outsource antenatal care and gerontology services while we're at it.

Already doing it to the UK for some medical operations not done here due to facilities/expertise. Dont see this as an issue.

jetfiremuck

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Like all the 'other issues'. We will soon live in a world where people will be forcibly married to others of the same sex, foetuses will be compulsorily aborted and euthanasia will be compulsory on ones 65th birthday! This is why we must control people's personal freedoms and not ever let them make their own decisions!

Even worse than that , that a medical board can decide what medical care you should be entitled to based on your lifestyle or lack therof...

jetfiremuck

koth wrote: »

That's just nonsense tbh. A government shouldn't be just sweep everything under the carpet. What if the countries that provide the services stop providing them? Now we're in trouble because all those people who took the service for granted can no longer avail of it.

Why not suggest shipping kids to foreign countries to receive their education while we're at it? :rolleyes:

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

Sarky

OH SWEET JESUS USE MULTIQUOTE

Corkfeen

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

I don't believe society should condemn a minority of people who are physically suffering to an extreme degree who desire for their life to be ended. The taxpayer pays for many procedures that you mightn't necessarily agree with, big deal.

Turtwig

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

So you'd rather the tax payer pays way way more every year keeping these people alive against their very own wishes?

BluntGuy

jetfiremuck wrote:

Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

You haven't provided a single compelling reason why those issues should not be dealt with here in Ireland.

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

What does it matter if there's thousands, or tens, or even just one or two? Why should the state be allowed condemn people to undignified, slow deaths?

Between this and the abortion "debate", I find myself periodically checking my calender to remind myself what century I'm in.

lazygal

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Already doing it to the UK for some medical operations not done here due to facilities/expertise. Dont see this as an issue.

Which antenatal care is done abroad, apart from terminations? Why only some, why not the rest?

Delirium

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

I have no idea how many would avail of euthanasia if it was made available here. But since when did the health service operate on the premise of only treating/offering a service based on the frequency of the illness/service required?

If cancer only affected 500 people in the population, would you suggest we say "you may go to Holland for treatment"? :eek:

With regards to cost, can you provide support/data for your implication that it cheaper to keep someone alive over a number of years/months compared to allowing euthanasia to be carried out?

And as for the "what if someone changes their mind" problem. Why is it that you think we should trust a foreign government to honour a patients request but not our own?

kylith

jetfiremuck wrote: »

I would think that most of those issues are safeguarded and are enshrined in that countries legislation where this is facilitated.

They are in countries with legal euthanasia, but not here. If my mother were dying in agony and I helped to go to Switzerland to die with dignity I would be arrested on my arrival back in Ireland.

But, sure, fúck the dying, right? Let them linger in agony for all you care, just as long as you don't have to cope with change and people wanting to do things that you don't agree with.

Smokey2442

Seriously, if the woman doesn't want to live anymore, that's her choice, and she should be allowed follow through with it. Because of the brilliant government we have she has to suffer until she does eventually die. Is that not extremely cruel? It's a disgrace.

magicbastarder

poor old enda is probably sick of these issues. abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia; they seem to be piling up all of a sudden.

Bobby42

It seems the government are only interested in you before you are born and when you're dying, and not in between.

Galvasean

Bobby42 wrote: »

It seems the government are only interested in you before you born and when you're dying, and not in between.

If you don't get born you can't pay taxes.
If you die you can't pay taxes.

magicbastarder

we need a birth tax.

Akrasia

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Ffs . This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves. Get on a Ryanair flight to The Netherlands,belgium,Luxemburg or Oregon and Washington if he wants to complete what he wants to do. Same with abortion,better medical care may have prevented it. If you need an abortion......get yourself to another country and take care of it.

Of all the possible arguments against allowing terminally ill people the right to die with dignity and in a manner of their choosing, this is the very worst one

What you're essentially saying is "Because other countries allow this as a right, we don't need to allow that right here"

You're also saying that you don't have an issue with people travelling to access this right but are opposed to people accessing that right in Ireland.

There is no good argument for denying people the right to die if that is their sincere choice, if their lives become intolerable with no prospect of improvement

None. If your own religious belief says you should never choose Euthanasia, that's fine, nobody is suggesting that you should have it imposed upon you. But your have absolutely no right to impose your private religious belefs on others.

magicbastarder

plus, he mentioned the words 'dignity' and 'ryanair' in the same sentence.

Nodin

jetfiremuck wrote: »

Yousurely dont think there are thousands waiting to do this ffs. Who do you propose will pay for this procedure.... The gov,taxpayer, medical insurance and above all else the resulting lawsuits if there was a change of heart by the recipient. Can of worms is putting it midly.

If you'd get back to me on the points raised here, I'd appreciate it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84386712&postcount=16

Kiwi in IE

For God's sake (haha) I wish people would wake up to reality and 2013. In countries where there is euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion are available the sky hasn't fallen in, and no catholic anywhere that I am aware of has been forced to avail of these services by the heathen states that allow them. No one is infringing on anyone else's rights due to the provision of these services. Catholicism however is currently infringing on the rights of the rest of us in Ireland due to it's prevailing, irrational influence in matters of state. Why can the religious not be content to make choices about not availing of these services personally according to their beliefs? I cannot understand the need to decide such things for other people who don't share their beliefs.

redfacedbear

jetfiremuck wrote: »

This is about an intellectual trying to change the law to suit themselves.

I find this comment very odd. Are you suggesting that because the woman is 'an intellectual' that she shouldn't have the right to challenge a law that she sees as unjust and that affects her terribly?

There is (probably always has been) a strong undercurrent of anti-intellectualism that guides an awful lot of popular opinion but to suggest a (former) university lecturer's stance on an issue should be invalidated on the basis of her status is astonishing.

Galvasean

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

For God's sake (haha) I wish people would wake up to reality and 2013. In countries where there is euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion are available the sky hasn't fallen in, and no catholic anywhere that I am aware of has been forced to avail of these services by the heathen states that allow them. No one is infringing on anyone else's rights due to the provision of these services. Catholicism however is currently infringing on the rights of the rest of us in Ireland due to it's prevailing, irrational influence in matters of state. Why can the religious not be content to make choices about not availing of these services personally according to their beliefs? I cannot understand the need to decide such things for other people who don't share their beliefs.

Because religions, by n' large, are about power and control and this has always been the case.

Kiwi in IE

Galvasean wrote: »

Because religions, by n' large, are about power and control and this has always been the case.

But they are ridiculous! And there is no proof of their claims! Why are unsubstantiated beliefs allowed to impact the lives of those of us who don't believe them?

swampgas

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But they are ridiculous! And there is no proof of their claims! Why are unsubstantiated beliefs allowed to impact the lives of those of us who don't believe them?

I think it's a combination of inertia, groupthink and childhood indoctrination.

If enough people around you appear to believe something, you are more inclined to believe it yourself. Maybe the brain is hardwired with a heuristic along the lines of "anything lots of other people believe is probably true, don't waste energy analysing it too closely". If you have already been brainwashed as a child into believing something crazy, it's harder to recognise and correct that faulty belief when you are surrounded by adults who seem to accept it as true.

Childhood religious indoctrination is highly effective in two ways: firstly in how it inculcates a series of irrational ideas that go more or less unquestioned by many people even as they grow into adulthood, and secondly in the way it seems to hide its tracks - people simply don't seem to realise that many of their beliefs and values are not their own but are the direct result of this childhood brainwashing.

Big C

Best of luck to marie, hope she finds peace, she campaigns for me and lots of a silent minority,

force eleven

Sure, let's just put all old people down (insert age demographic here), and out of their misery. Leave it up to us, your trusted government, to decide when you are fit to leave this mortal coil.

I weep for society. Neo Liberalism is trying to run riot.

Sarky

You haven't the faintest idea what everyone else was talking about, do you?

mohawk

force eleven wrote: »

Sure, let's just put all old people down (insert age demographic here), and out of their misery. Leave it up to us, your trusted government, to decide when you are fit to leave this mortal coil.

I weep for society. Neo Liberalism is trying to run riot.

neoliberalism [ˌniːəʊˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm -ˈlɪbrəˌlɪzəm]n (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (Economics) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etcneoliberal adj & n

Turtwig

force eleven wrote: »

Sure, let's just put all old people down (insert age demographic here), and out of their misery. Leave it up to us, your trusted government, to decide when you are fit to leave this mortal coil.

I weep for society. Neo Liberalism is trying to run riot.

I think that's Fianna Gael you mean there? Put folks out of their misery because, sure, we're all going to die anyway.