The High Court authorised the medical team, at its discretion, to withdraw ongoing somatic support for a woman who had suffered brain stem death while 15 weeks pregnant. The court found there was no realistic prospect that her unborn child would be born alive if support continued.
The judgment, delivered on 26 December 2014, followed a hearing on 23 December under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The case was brought by the woman’s father against the Health Service Executive. Her identity and the hospitals involved were protected by a publication restriction made earlier in the proceedings, which the judgment said remained in effect.
The court found that the woman suffered brain stem death on 3 December, after a fall in hospital. It found that she was 15 weeks pregnant at the time. She had been receiving intensive bodily support, including mechanical ventilation and medication, after being transferred back to a hospital outside Dublin on 8 December. A tracheostomy was carried out on 17 December to facilitate continued support in an attempt to reach fetal viability.
Her father sought to end the treatment, which he considered unreasonable and unlawful. The HSE supported the application. The unborn child and the woman were also represented. Medical experts gave evidence about the woman’s deteriorating condition, including serious infections and unstable blood pressure, and the prospects for the pregnancy. The court said the expert evidence was uncontradicted that brain death at such an early stage left no realistic hope of a live birth. It concluded that continued support was futile and would cause distress to the unborn child.
The court considered the unborn child’s constitutional right to life and held that the obligation to vindicate that right was qualified by what was practicable. It said the mother’s dignity remained relevant after her death, alongside the grief and wishes of her family. On the evidence in this case, however, the court found there was no realistic prospect of a live birth and that continuing support would not serve the unborn child’s best interests.
The court made a declaration authorising withdrawal of the support at the medical team’s discretion. The order did not direct the team to withdraw treatment. It also awarded the father the costs of the proceedings and made similar costs orders for the representatives of the woman and the unborn child.