The right to die - Politicians can’t dodge this issue

Ten days ago, Praveen Halappanavar, speaking after the inquest into his wife Savita’s unnecessary death, used the words “horrendous, barbaric, and inhumane”.

It should give every one of us pause for deep and honest reflection that those very words are, tragically, appropriate once again in describing how another vulnerable and dependent woman has been treated in this Republic.

It should make us all think deeply about the kind of society we live in — or want to live in — and the cruel consequences of the principles advanced by a particular culture and supported through our Constitution.

Yesterday, Marie Fleming, a terminally ill 59-year-old, lost her Supreme Court challenge to Ireland’s veto on assisted suicide. Her partner, Tom Curran, immediately indicated he would help her to die if that is what she wished. So, not only has one life been defined by this lacuna, Mr Curran, like others in a similar position, may risk his liberty if he helps his partner end what is left of her life in a way she considers no more than a dignified expression of her rights.

This view is shared by more and more people and though politicians may prefer to avoid a deeply divisive issue — like they have with abortion for over 30 years — it will have to be resolved sooner or later.

Recognising this evasion, Chief Justice Mrs Justice Susan Denham pointed out that nothing in the judgment “should be taken as necessarily implying it would not be open to the State, in the event the Oireachtas were satisfied that measures with appropriate safeguards could be introduced, to deal with a case such as that of Ms Fleming’s”.

Basically, our legislators have been told to consider the issue and legislate on it. Experience suggests, however, that Ireland’s political class are far happier to avoid divisive, vote-expensive issues rather than do what they are elected to do, possibly hoping that the EU might intervene and eventually force their hand.

Despite the narrow rejection — by 51% to 49% — of right-to-die proposals in Massachusetts last November, a shift in attitude has taken place since 1999 when an American court sentenced Jack Kevorkian to a lengthy jail term after he admitted helping 130 patients die. Assisted suicide is legal in seven countries and is being debated in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Britain, and, after yesterday’s ruling, Ireland.

Of course there are very legitimate concerns and it is right that very strong safeguards be put in place to prevent abuse. Nevertheless, experience shows that where assisted suicide is legalised, the floodgates remain firmly closed. In Switzerland, for example, where it has been allowed since 1942, assisted suicide accounts for around 300 deaths each year, about 0.5% of all deaths.

This is another issue where the tectonic plates of secularism and religion collide but, as on other issues, various faiths have had to accept that a single world view cannot prevail as it once did. This is a case where the mere recognition of difference is not enough, it must be facilitated too. It is time our laws recognised that some people will choose to avoid the terrible closing stages of a terminal illness and it is hard to see how we, through the State, have the right to intervene at such a profound, personal moment of tragedy and loss made almost bearable by the prospect of a planned release.