Unborn right to life surpasses mothers right to dignified death, court told

The three judge High Court, comprising the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, Ms Justice Marie Baker and Ms Justice Caroline Costello has heard final legal arguments and will rule on he matter on Friday, St Stephens Day. File photograph: Bryan OBrien

A clinically dead pregnant woman must be maintained on life support if the High Court finds there is a real prospect her unborn child will achieve viability outside the womb, lawyers representing the interests of the unborn have argued.

The Constitution requires the right to life of the unborn be vindicated where practicable and that right surpasses the right of a non-sentient woman to a dignified death, Conor Dignam SC submitted.

A three judge High Court, comprising Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, Ms Justice Marie Baker and Ms Justice Caroline Costello, heard final legal arguments from Mr Dignam and the other relevant parties today on the womans familys application to stop the life-supporting somatic treatment. The court will rule on the application at noon on Friday, St Stephenss Day.

The family want the somatic treatment stopped so they may bury the woman, aged in her mid-20s and a mother of young children, with dignity.

She was pronounced clinically dead on December 3rd last, her condition is deteriorating and she displays puffiness of the torso, an open head wound, rotting brain, and also has several infections. A number of medical experts have said the prospect of the foetus surviving intact is small even if treatment continues.

On Christmas Eve, in submissions for the family, Mary OToole SC said it appeared unanimous among the clinicians who gave evidence, all of whom had vast experience, the prospect of this unborn surviving to viability, let alone birth is small, almost negligible.

In those circumstances, the 1983 ant-abortion amendment was not engaged, she argued. When Mr Justice Kearns remarked it did not seem to the court this is an abortion case at all, Ms OToole agreed and said both the woman and her baby would be dead were it not for medical intervention.

There was also an issue concerning the effects of the drugs being pumped into the mother, counsel said. It was not in the best interests of this unborn for it to be maintained in its current environment.

The best interests test should rest on the medical evidence, she said. The right to life of an unborn is the right to be born and the purpose of the 1983 amendment was to prevent anyone maliciously preventing that.

Read the original:
Unborn right to life surpasses mothers right to dignified death, court told