M(J) v St. Vincent's Hospital

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date24 October 2002
Date24 October 2002
Docket Number[2002 No. 13684P]
CourtHigh Court
J.M. v. St. Vincent's Hospital
J.M.
Applicant
and
The Board of Management of Saint Vincent's Hospital and Justin Geoghegan, Respondents and P.M., Notice Party
[2002 No. 13684P]

High Court

Wards of court - Refusal of medical treatment - Lunacy - Right to self-determination - Urgent application - Patient in coma - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Wishes of husband - Whether court should uphold decision to refuse medical treatment - Whether court can rely on parens patriae jurisdiction - Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict., c. 22) - Constitution of Ireland 1937 Article 40.

Constitution - Personal rights - Right to life - Right to refuse medical treatment - Right to self-determination - Court's jurisdiction to intervene - Whether decision final and clear - Constitution of Ireland 1937 Article 40.3.

The notice party was critically ill and required immediate blood transfusions and a liver transplant to save her life. Her husband, the applicant, was a Jehovah's Witness and the notice party, who was African, had adopted her husband's religion upon their marriage. She had been studying to do so since March, 2002. During a lucid interval, the notice party discussed the matter of her treatment with the applicant and later, when not so clear of speech or mind, indicated to him her decision to accept the medical treatment. However, within a short period of time, she refused to sign the consent form and appeared to have changed her mind.

Held by the High Court (Finnegan P.), in admitting the notice party to wardship and directing the provision of medical treatment, 1, that, having regard to the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the delay which would be incurred by following the normal statutory route, the court could rely on its parens patriae jurisdiction in deciding whether or not to uphold a decision to refuse medical treatment.

In re D. [1987] I.R. 449 and In re Birch (1892) 29 L.R. Ir. 274 applied.

2. That, in exercising its jurisdiction to protect and vindicate the personal right of a ward of court to refuse medical treatment, the court should consider the right of the person to determine for herself provided she was competent to make such a decision.

In re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79 applied.

3. That the decision to refuse treatment was not a clear final decision as the notice party was pre-occupied with her husband and his religious beliefs rather than her own welfare and whether or not to have treatment. Her decision to refuse treatment stemmed from the notice party's cultural background and desire to please her husband and not to offend his sensibilities.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

In re Birch (1892) 29 L.R. Ir. 274.

In re D. [1987] I.R. 449; [1988] I.L.R.M. 251.

In re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79; [1995] 2 I.L.R.M. 401.

Plenary summons.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Fitzpatrick v F.K. and another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 April 2008
    ...PAUL v WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK INC 819 F 2D 875 M (J) v BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF ST VINCENTS HOSPITAL & GEOGHEGAN 2003 1 IR 321 LUNACY REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT 1871 CONSTITUTION ART 42 NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD v W (H) 2001 3 IR 622 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.3 CONSTITUTION......
  • A.C. on behalf of his mother O.C. v The Health Service Executive
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 September 2018
    ...medical treatment) (No. 2), [1996] 2 I.R. 79, In Re M., ex parte unreported, High Court (Finnegan P.) 24th October, 2002; J.M. [2003] 1 I.R. 321; A.M. [2017] IEHC 184 and AC v. Fitzpatrick & Ors, Decision 44 The Court has no jurisdiction under the Article 40.4.2 procedure to interfere in an......
  • The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v Slawomir Gierlowski
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 19 January 2021
    ...sever an indictment; although the concentration of the arguments was on severance by the trial judge. 21 . In The People (DPP) v Nevin [2003] I.R. 321 the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the First Schedule to the Act of 1924 when considering if four counts of soliciting to murder were c......
3 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT