Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Withdrawal of somatic support for brain dead pregnant woman is in best interest of unborn child
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court authorises the withdrawal of somatic support for a brain dead pregnant woman, on the basis that: (a) it is in the best interest of her 15-week old unborn child who has virtually no prospect of survival; and (b) the continuation of treatment would deprive the woman of dignity in death and cause immense suffering for her family and partner.
Plenary proceedings - High Court - divisional court - plaintiff (PP) is the father of "NP" - NP is a 26-year-old woman who died on 3 December 2014 while 15 weeks pregnant - NP admitted to hospital on 27th November 2014 - NP suffered brain stem death - NP placed on life support in order to preserve life of unborn child - PP informed that NP would remain on support for duration of pregnancy - PP believes life support measures are unreasonable and should be discontinued - PP and other family members wish to allow NP a dignified death - representation in Court for PP, NP and the unborn child - no will or advance direction indicating wishes ever given by NP - evidence to effect that NP was looking forward to birth of child - evidence given by MJ, NP's partner of four or five years - MJ wishes to end life-support on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the unborn child will survive - evidence given by consultants in intensive care medicine, obstetrics and neurology - NP requires constant medical attention in addition to life-support - NP's brain liquefying - experts agree that NP's situation will quickly become unsustainable - experts do not believe unborn child can survive even if somatic support continued - HSE also of opinion that child cannot survive - Court finds as a fact that child has virtually no chance of survival, with or without the provision of somatic care to the mother - Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution - whether this right relevant in this instance - whether right of mother to die with dignity and the rights of the child should be balanced - interpretation of the terms "as far as practicable" and "sa mhéid gur féidir é" - Court does not accept Counsel for the unborn's submission that "féidir" should be interpreted in English as meaning what is "possible" rather than what is "feasible" or "practical" - Court also does not accept counsel for the unborn's submission that mother's right to die with dignity not engaged as she is already dead - Court finds that rights of child however prevail over rights of mother and family - Court considers how far it should go to vindicate right of the unborn - right to life, while primary right, is not without qualifications - life must not be prolonged in all circumstances - Court takes guidance from In re a Ward of Court (witholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79 - removal of somatic support entirely different to abortion because it is the withdrawal of ongoing support rather than the direct termination of life - Court finds that attempts to save child at this early stage would be futile - Court finds that best interest of child lie with the removal of life support for NP - Court makes declaration to that effect - matter raises issue of major public importance - as such, Court grants PP his costs and makes same order in respect of representatives of NP and the unborn child.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
