Paralyzed woman loses first Irish right-to-die case

[FishingRod]

By Sarah O'Connor | Reuters – 1 hr 33 mins ago
DUBLIN (Reuters) - An Irish woman terminally ill with multiple sclerosis lost her battle for the lawful right to die in the first case of its kind to be brought in Ireland, Dublin's High Court said on Thursday.
Marie Fleming, a 59-year-old former university lecturer who is completely paralyzed, made an impassioned plea last month to establish the right of her partner of 18 years to help her die, an act that could currently see him jailed in mainly Roman Catholic Ireland.
A 'right to die' debate has played out through recent high-profile court cases in neighboring Britain, where three people all failed in bids to win legal assistance to die. Assisted suicide is only permitted in four European countries: Belgium; Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Judge Nicholas Kearns said Fleming was the most remarkable witness any member of the court had encountered and acknowledged that her life has been "rendered miserable" after being "ravaged by an insidious disease".
However he said it would be impossible to tailor legislation governing assisted suicide on an individual basis and doing so would be harmful to the public interest in protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
"There are no words to express the difficulty we had in arriving at this decision," Kearns said, reading a summary of the 121-page judgment.
"Yet the fact remains that if this court were to unravel a thread of this law by even the most limited constitutional adjudication in her favor, it would - or at least might - open a Pandora's box which would be impossible to close."
"VERY SADDENED"
Suicide was decriminalized in Ireland in 1993, but the ban on helping someone to commit suicide remains, with a jail sentence of up to 14 years.
Kearns said he felt sure the state, which agreed to pay all legal costs, would exercise its discretion in a humane and sensitive fashion in deciding whether to prosecute if Fleming were to be assisted in taking her own life.
The mother of two adult children had told the court in a composed manner last month how her life had become totally undignified and too painful to bear, and said she had planned every detail, including funeral arrangements.
Her partner hugged and kissed her after the judgment was handed out and, reading a statement on her behalf outside the court, her solicitor said Fleming greatly appreciated the enormous support she had received from members of the public.
"Obviously Marie is very disappointed and saddened at today's outcome, and feels it would be inappropriate at the present time to discuss any specific legal aspects of the case having regard to the likelihood of an appeal," solicitor Bernadette Parte said.
A recent poll found that large majorities of west Europeans favor the legalization of assisted suicide.
As well as in the four European countries, assisted suicide is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington.
The issue of amending the Irish constitution has also been highlighted recently following the death of a woman who was refused an abortion of her dying fetus, re-igniting a debate that has divided the country for decades.
(Reporting by Sarah O'Connor; Writing by Padraic Halpin; Editing by Louise Ireland and Jason Webb)

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I already did. Please read it.

This is the last thing you wrote concerning that.

In fact it can be done in one word if you want.

Write it, please. If you already wrote it, please write it again.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

I find your take on this a little surprising. You typically are against the Government meddling in our personal lives and don’t seem to be a fan of Making people do what is best for them whether they like it or not.

Then you missed my pro-life my abortion arguments. I believe the first reason governments are formed is to protect human life and that this is inviolate. Self-defense, personal or collectively, as I have stated here but you seem to be ignoring are the only valid reasons for taking the life of another. This is the proper role of govt. I never claimed to be anarchist or for no govt—just limited govt. We have the right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" in that exact order. Life is protected first and foremost by govt. <--- for KChiefer too.

In many states it is perfectly legal to kill a person for entering your home uninvited even just to safeguard your TV. I really can’t imagine anything less the governments business than if I were to decide my quality of life (for whatever reason I want) is such that I would prefer to no longer endure it.

That is self defense. Helping in a suicide makes you murderer. It is not self-defense. If a person themselves do it, and succeed then the point is moot isn't it? The state can't do anything. Otherwise, it's usually a call for help.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

This is the last thing you wrote concerning that.



Write it, please. If you already wrote it, please write it again.

Pot #10,#12, part of #19, post #23 and my last one #32. No, I do not have to write it all out again. I don't have the time and don't like redoing things that need not be done twice.

Now you have never answered mine. Where does this right come from, to kill another person to put them out of their misery?

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Pot #10,#12, part of #19, post #23 and my last one #32. No, I do not have to write it all out again. I don't have the time and don't like redoing things that need not be done twice.

Now you have never answered mine. Where does this right come from, to kill another person to put them out of their misery?

None of those are one word posts. Please give me a one word post. It's so easy. One word to make me eat all of mine.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

None of those are one word posts. Please give me a one word post. It's so easy. One word to make me eat all of mine.

Can't be done with one word. That relies on two-valued logic. You have no right to insist on a one word answer. You just can't read.

[BucEyedPea]

Re-posted:

It's not a right for someone to intentionally take the life of another—for any reason except self-defense or if they've forfeited that right by taking anothers and have had a trial over it with the state doing the deed.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Can't be done with one word. That relies on two-valued logic. You have no right to insist on a one word answer. You just can't read.

But you said that it could.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I'll vary the question: Where do rights, any natural inalienable rights, come from?.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

But the answer to this one, is actually simpler. In fact it can be done in one word if you want.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

But you said that it could.

I was referring to the answer to your question. Look, you're just in some sort of games mode. When you read things let me know. Then I'll take it up again. In the meantime, I will note that you never answered my question. Go read some Thomas Jefferson.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I was referring to the answer to your question. Look, you're just in some sort of games mode. When you read things let me know. Then I'll take it up again. In the meantime, I will note that you never answered my question. Go read some Thomas Jefferson.

What question did I ask that you had a one word answer for? Lord knows you haven't answered a question in one word in years.

[BucEyedPea]

Did you say something?

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Did you say something?

That's what I thought.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

In fact it can be done in one word if you want.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Can't be done with one word. You just can't read.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm glad someone else is seeing/appreciating this.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Then you missed my pro-life my abortion arguments. I believe the first reason governments are formed is to protect human life and that this is inviolate. Self-defense, personal or collectively, as I have stated here but you seem to be ignoring are the only valid reasons for taking the life of another. This is the proper role of govt. I never claimed to be anarchist or for no govt—just limited govt. We have the right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" in that exact order. Life is protected first and foremost by govt. <--- for KChiefer too.



That is self defense. Helping in a suicide makes you murderer. It is not self-defense. If a person themselves do it, and succeed then the point is moot isn't it? The state can't do anything. Otherwise, it's usually a call for help.

Well more often than not we are on the same page this is just not one of those instances. What you see as murder I see as an act of mercy and simply being humane. We couldn’t be further apart on this one. While I feel strongly about this issue I see no chance in either changing the others mind so we will just have to agree to disagree and not waste one another’s time.

I would say using deadly force to defend ones property while legal in many places probably wouldn’t meet your criteria for a deadly response. I’m not entirely comfortable with it myself but, would have a very difficult time as juror voting to convict a homeowner for shooting an intruder. The burglar would need to present one hell of a case.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Deaf twins who discovered they were going blind and would never see each other again are euthanized in Belgian hospital

Identical twin brothers euthanised by doctors in unique Belgium case
Twins, who were born deaf, made decision after learning they would go blind
The brothers, who spent their lives together, were unable to bear the thought of never seeing each other again

By James Rush and Damien Gayle

PUBLISHED: 04:53 EST, 14 January 2013 | UPDATED: 08:29 EST, 14 January 2013

A pair of identical twins, who were born deaf, have been killed by Belgian doctors after seeking euthanasia when they found out they would also soon go blind.

In a unique case under the country's euthanasia laws, the 45-year-old brothers, from Antwerp, chose death as they were unable to bear the thought of never seeing one another again.

They were euthanised by doctors at Brussels University Hospital, in Jette, on December 14 by lethal injection after spending their entire lives together.

The unnamed twins who died together: They were euthanised by doctors at Brussels University Hospital, in Jette, on December 14, by lethal injection after spending their entire lives together

Euthanasia is legal under Belgian law if those making the decision can make their wishes clear and are suffering unbearable pain, according to a doctor's judgement.

The Belgian law differs from that of Switzerland, famous for its Dignitas clinic, where only 'assisted suicide' is permitted. This means patients must play an active role in the administration of the drug that ends their lives.

In Belgium, some 1,133 cases of euthanasia - mostly for terminal cancer - were recorded in 2011, about one percent of all deaths in the country, according to official figures.

But this case was unusual as neither twin was suffering extreme physical pain or was terminally ill.

Brussels University Hospital: In Belgium, some 1,133 cases of euthanasia - mostly for terminal cancer - were recorded in 2011, about one percent of all deaths in the country, according to official figures

The two brothers, who have not been named but were pictured on Belgian television, both worked as cobblers and shared a flat together, The Telegraph has reported.

David Dufour, the doctor who presided over the euthanasia, told RTL television news the twins had taken the decision in 'full conscience'.

He said they were 'very happy' and it had was a 'relief' to see the end of their suffering.

'They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation,' Mr Dufour said.

'Then the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful.

'At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.'

More to come? Belgium's ruling Socialists tabled a legal amendment just days after the twins were killed which would allow the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer's sufferers (picture posed by models)

Belgium was the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalise euthanasia in 2002 but it currently applies only to people over the age of 18.

Other jurisdictions where it is permitted include Luxembourg and the U.S. state of Oregon.

Just days after the twins were killed Belgium's ruling Socialists tabled a legal amendment which would allow the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer's sufferers.

The draft legislation calls for 'the law to be extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate.'

The proposed changes are likely to be approved by other parties, although no date has yet been put forward for a parliamentary debate.

The Dignitas building in Pfaeffikon near Zurich: Under Swiss law only 'assisted suicide' is permitted - which means that patients must take an active role in administering the drug that ends their lives

A bid to tighten legal controls on assisted deaths in Switzerland and ban suicide tourism was recently rejected by the country's parliament.

Experts say the suicide tourism industry's clients come mainly from Britain, Germany, and France, but that numbers have been declining in recent years.

Statistics from Dignitas show the clinic based near Zurich has helped a total of 1,298 people commit suicide between 1998 and 2011.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2I34TUPtD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook