The HSE has secured an interim order allowing it to administer fluids to a woman who has psychiatric issues arising from child sexual abuse and wants to be allowed die.
The President of the High Court has adjourned the Health Service Executive's application to be also allowed force feed the woman who has not eaten and taken hardly any fluids over two weeks.
The case was "tragic and unusual" and involved issues that had never come before the court before, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said.
The woman is being treated at a psychiatric facility outside Dublin and her doctors fear she could die in days if she does not immediately increase her fluid intake.
Traumatised
Lawyers for the woman said she had given clear instructions to oppose the HSE’s application. The woman’s husband supported the HSE’s application.
The woman, in her 40s, no longer wants to live because she is so traumatised by the abuse she suffered, the court was told.
Three medical professionals, including a consultant physician and a consultant psychiatrist who have treated her, said she lacks the mental capacity to make such a decision.
Another consultant psychiatrist disagreed and said the woman is fully aware of what she has chosen to do.
Today, Mr Justice Kearns granted the HSE an interim order allowing it to administer fluids to the woman. He was told the woman’s extremely low intake of fluids, about 130ml a day, could result in organ failure and death “within days”.
The judge adjourned the matter to early next week to allow the woman to discuss matters with her husband, speak with a medical professional who has been treating her and consult with her legal team.
He would assess the situation again when those steps have been carried out, he said.
Force feed
Michael Ramsey, for the woman, said her instructions were “quite clear” and she was opposed to the orders allowing the HSE to force feed her via a nasogastric tube or a gastric tube, known as a PEG, and wanted to be allowed “continue along the path she has chosen”.
Shane Costelloe SC, for the HSE, said the court was in “an invidious position” where it had to decide against competing rights.
On one hand, there was the woman’s right to bodily integrity while on the other there was her right to life.
The crux of the case was whether she has the mental capacity to take the decision that would effectively end her life, he said.
The woman suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders because she was sexually abused by an older male for several years during her childhood, he said.