Women in the Irish Republic will have to be given the means to access legal abortions there if their lives are at risk, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a landmark judgment. The ruling, by the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court, can not be appealed and will require Ireland to legislate or otherwise set up a framework to decide whether there is a “real and substantial risk” to a woman’s life if she goes ahead with her pregnancy. The court held that the human rights of a woman with a rare cancer were violated when she was obliged to travel to the United Kingdom for an abortion and awarded her €15 000 (£12 700; $19 800) in compensation.
The High Court has granted a Dublin maternity hospital orders allowing it to perform, if required, an emergency blood transfusion to the unborn child of a Jehovah's Witnesses couple who is at risk of being delivered prematurely. Today the court heard the child's mother, who is approximately 26 weeks pregnant, presented with a spontaneous premature ruptured membrane. Doctors at the hospital treating the woman, who cannot be identified by order of the court, say they can't predict exactly when the child will be delivered but that the likelihood of a premature birth is high. They claim in the event the child is born in the next four to five weeks the infant "most likely will require a transfusion of blood or blood related products in order to safeguard the child's life and prevent it from sustaining serious injury." However the parents, for religious reasons, have refused to give their consent to allow the hospital administer a transfusion to the child.
[2013] IEHC 2 In the 75 years since the Constitution was enacted both this Court and the Supreme Court have been required to examine a vast proliferation of issues in a huge corpus of case-law. Over that period few cases have emerged which are more tragic or which present more difficult or profound questions than the issues presented for adjudication here. At the heart of this application lie novel and difficult questions as to whether constitutional provisions which guarantee personal liberty and autonomy in Article 40 of the Constitution are interfered with by a statutory prohibition which prohibits even a citizen in deep personal distress and afflicted by a terminal and degenerative illness to avail of an assisted suicide and, if they do, whether such an absolute statutory prohibition passes a proportionality test.