(5) The development of advance care directives in Ireland1.40 Developments in Ireland have followed a similar pattern as otherStates, with the first significant discussi<strong>on</strong> of the issue being a lecture byCostello J in 1986 that addressed the US Quinlan case of 10 years previously.In 1996, the High Court and Supreme Court dealt with a high-profile caseinvolving a woman who had been in a near PVS state for over 20 years. Thedevelopment of a str<strong>on</strong>g hospice movement in Ireland in recent years has alsoraised the profile of advance care planning at the end of life; and, in 2007 theIrish Council for <strong>Bioethics</strong> published an Opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Advance</strong> <strong>Care</strong> <strong>Directives</strong>. 47(a)Costello J’s 1986 lecture <strong>on</strong> the terminally ill1.41 In a lecture given in 1986 <strong>on</strong> the law c<strong>on</strong>cerning the terminally ill, 48Costello J noted that, in Re Quinlan, 49 the New Jersey Supreme Court hadc<strong>on</strong>cluded that the withdrawal of artificial respirati<strong>on</strong> from Karen Quinlan wouldnot amount to homicide <strong>on</strong> the basis that her death had not been as a result ofthe withdrawal of life-support but had resulted from natural causes. He alsosuggested that the right of the terminally ill patient to forego life-sustainingtreatment is compatible with the provisi<strong>on</strong>s of the C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> of Ireland: 50―…there are very powerful arguments to suggest that the dignity andaut<strong>on</strong>omy of the human pers<strong>on</strong> (as c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>ally predicated)require the State to recognise that decisi<strong>on</strong>s relating to life and deathare, generally speaking, <strong>on</strong>es in which a competent adult should befree to make without outside restraint, and that this freedom shouldbe regarded as an aspect of the right to privacy which should beprotected as a ‗pers<strong>on</strong>al‘ right by Article 40.3 [of the C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> ofIreland]… [I]n the case of the terminally ill, it is very difficult to seewhat circumstances would justify the interference with a decisi<strong>on</strong> by acompetent adult of the right to forego or disc<strong>on</strong>tinue life-savingtreatment.‖1.42 These views, expressed by a leading Irish judge, even if writtenoutside his judicial role, str<strong>on</strong>gly support the c<strong>on</strong>cept that an advance caredirective would be enforceable in Irish law. Indeed, they were also expresslyreferred to ten years later in a very similar Irish case.(b) The Ward of Court case (1996)47484950Irish Council for <strong>Bioethics</strong> Is It Time for <strong>Advance</strong>d Healthcare <strong>Directives</strong>? (2007).Costello ―The Terminally Ill-The <strong>Law</strong>‘s C<strong>on</strong>cern‖ (1986) 21 Irish Jurist 35.355 A 2d 647 (1976): see paragraph 1.15, above.Costello ―The Terminally Ill – The <strong>Law</strong>‘s C<strong>on</strong>cerns‖ (1986) 21 Irish Jurist 35, at42.21
1.43 Ten years after Costello J delivered his lecture, his comments werecited with approval in the Irish equivalent of the Quinlan case, Re a Ward ofCourt (No 2). 51 This case involved a 46 year old woman, 52 who had sufferedsevere brain damage during a routine surgical procedure 24 years previously.During those 24 years, she had been in a near persistent vegetative state (nearPVS). Initially, she had been fed through a nasogastric (ng) tube, but this waslater replaced by the sec<strong>on</strong>d major form of artificial feeding tube, thepercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube, usually called a PEG tube. Hermother applied for directi<strong>on</strong>s from the courts as to the proper care andtreatment of her daughter. As with the other cases already discussed, such asQuinlan, Cruzan and Bland, the issue for the courts was whether it waspermissible in Irish law to withdraw the medical treatment, in particular the formof artificial and nutriti<strong>on</strong> and hydrati<strong>on</strong> (ANH) being given to her through thePEG tube feeding.1.44 The High Court (Lynch J) and, <strong>on</strong> appeal, the Supreme Court(Hamilt<strong>on</strong> CJ, O‘Flaherty, Blayney and Denham JJ; Egan J dissenting) broadlyfollowed the approach taken by the House of Lords in the Bland case and heldthat it was in the woman‘s best interests that the artificial nutriti<strong>on</strong> and hydrati<strong>on</strong>(ANH) should be withdrawn and that she should be allowed ―to die inaccordance with nature with all such palliative care and medicati<strong>on</strong> as isnecessary to ensure a peaceful and pain-free death.‖ The High Court and, <strong>on</strong>appeal, the Supreme Court, stated that this withdrawal was lawful. The courtsalso declared that, after this, the n<strong>on</strong>-use of antibiotics for treatment ofinfecti<strong>on</strong>s, other than in a palliative way to avoid pain and suffering, was alsolawful. The courts also made an order allowing the woman‘s family to makesuch arrangements as they c<strong>on</strong>sidered suitable to admit her to a facility thatwould not regard the withdrawal of ANH to be c<strong>on</strong>trary to their code of ethics. 53515253[1996] 2 IR 79.The case was heard in camera and the parties were not identified at the time ofthe court proceedings: see Re a Ward of Court (No 1) [1996] 2 IR 73. Ten yearslater, in 2006, her mother Margaret Chamberlain wrote to The Irish Times (11April 2006) identifying herself and naming her daughter Lucy Chamberlain as the―Ward of Court‖ in the title of the 1996 case. Her letter had been prompted byanother high-profile end-of-life case in the United States, the Terri Schiavo case:see paragraph 1.20, above.The broad form of the orders made are set out at [1996] 2 IR 79, at 99.22
- Page 1: ReportBIOETHICS:AD
- Page 4 and 5: LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLEThe L
- Page 6 and 7: LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFFDirector o
- Page 8 and 9: CONTACT DETAILSFurther information
- Page 10 and 11: TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Legislati
- Page 12 and 13: CHAPTER 4CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHI
- Page 15: TABLE OF CASESAiredale NHS Trust v
- Page 19 and 20: advance care directives in the Unit
- Page 22 and 23: CHAPTER 1ORIGINS OF ADVANCE CARE DI
- Page 24 and 25: 1.08 The second major development i
- Page 26 and 27: Refusal of treatments by pregnant w
- Page 28 and 29: we believe Karen‘s choice, if she
- Page 30 and 31: 1995 English Law Commission <strong
- Page 32 and 33: a declaration that it would be lawf
- Page 34 and 35: Disabilities. 42 The draft Recommen
- Page 38 and 39: 1.45 In the Supreme Court, Hamilton
- Page 40 and 41: when determining the capacity quest
- Page 42 and 43: (d)Current use of advance care dire
- Page 44 and 45: e upheld. Indeed, this conclusion f
- Page 46 and 47: services, the need for palliative c
- Page 48 and 49: ecommendations in this Repo
- Page 50 and 51: efusal of medical treatment, subjec
- Page 52 and 53: consents to or refuses medical trea
- Page 54 and 55: (2) Autonomy, dignity and privacy(a
- Page 56 and 57: (3) Presumption in favour of preser
- Page 58 and 59: 2CHAPTER 2ADVANCE CARE DIRECTIVES,
- Page 60 and 61: 2.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 62 and 63: 2.12 The Council of Europe‘s 2009
- Page 64 and 65: donor understands the effect of mak
- Page 66 and 67: should be referred to the High Cour
- Page 68: 2.30 Another protection of importan
- Page 71 and 72: dentist 3psychologist 4social care
- Page 73 and 74: should be defined to include, but i
- Page 75 and 76: chemotherapy or dialysis, antibioti
- Page 77 and 78: Similarly, Power argues that there
- Page 79 and 80: assist either health care professio
- Page 81 and 82: approach met with broad approval an
- Page 83 and 84: Practice on Advance Care Directives
- Page 85 and 86: 3.48 The Commission recommends that
- Page 87 and 88:
(other than charges and directions
- Page 89 and 90:
3.64 The Commission concurs with th
- Page 91 and 92:
advance care directive involves a r
- Page 93 and 94:
eyond question that a court or a do
- Page 95 and 96:
close relationship that can exist b
- Page 97 and 98:
3.86 The Commission recommends that
- Page 99 and 100:
care directive. 105 The Commission
- Page 101 and 102:
the wishes or making their own deci
- Page 103 and 104:
sustaining treatment or whether the
- Page 105 and 106:
(b) for the guidance of persons, in
- Page 107 and 108:
omission.‖ 5 The Supreme Court in
- Page 109 and 110:
who acted in good faith could be pr
- Page 111 and 112:
or health professional cannot, for
- Page 113 and 114:
follow an advance care directive is
- Page 115 and 116:
the Board can erase the name of a n
- Page 117 and 118:
5.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 119 and 120:
directive would be likely to be enf
- Page 121 and 122:
Ensuring that the wishes of the mak
- Page 124 and 125:
APPENDIX DRAFT MENTAL CAPACITY (ADV
- Page 126 and 127:
Mental Health Act 2001Powers of Att
- Page 128 and 129:
―basic care‖ includes, but is n
- Page 130 and 131:
(3) The scope of an advance care di
- Page 132 and 133:
(ii) the name and address of that p
- Page 134 and 135:
(b) Without prejudice to section 5(
- Page 136 and 137:
paragraph 3.13 (palliative care), p
- Page 138 and 139:
Subsection (2) implements the recom
- Page 140 and 141:
www.lawreform.ie