Dying with Dignity: The Role of Dignity in the Irish Constitution and its Implications for the Prohibition of Assisted Suicide

Abstract

‘As there is no right to commit suicide, issues such as discrimination do not arise; nor do values such as dignity… apply to the situation… of the appellant.’ It might come as a surprise to see the role of dignity in a Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide reduced to a sweeping one-line statement of non-applicability. In Fleming v Ireland Marie Fleming, a woman in the advanced stages of multiple sclerosis (MS), challenged the constitutionality of the ban on assisted suicide in Ireland. The Supreme Court, in denying that any of her constitutional rights were engaged, failed to analyse the compatibility of this ban with the value of human dignity protected by the Irish Constitution. This paper argues that the failure to accord dignity a central place in considering the constitutionality of the ban on assisted suicide is attributable to the absence of a coherent conception of the role of dignity in Irish constitutional law. It analyses the case law on dignity and draws from it a coherent framework for the role of dignity, suggesting a consistent approach for the courts to take in cases engaging human dignity. The need for such a coherent approach to dignity is clear as this value is referred to more and more in recent Irish constitutional cases, and as social issues fundamentally affecting individuals’ human dignity such as assisted suicide, become more and more pressing. Understanding the role to be accorded to dignity in considering the constitutional implications of such issues will ensure that no one’s human dignity is overlooked in cases which affect it, as well as bringing much-needed consistency to the jurisprudence in this area. This paper then discusses the implications which dignity, when accorded its proper place in constitutional analysis, has for the absolute ban on assisted suicide in Irish criminal law. It argues that this blanket prohibition violates the gravely ill individual’s right to dignity and a number of other personal rights read in the light of dignity, and is therefore unconstitutional.