* Court says impossible to tailor law on individual basis 
 
 * Judge calls woman "most remarkable witness" court had seen 
 
 * Follows high profile right-to-die cases in Britain 
 
 By Sarah O'Connor 
 
 DUBLIN, Jan 10 (Reuters) - An Irish woman terminally ill with multiple sclerosis lost her battle for the lawful right to die in the first case of its kind to be brought in Ireland, Dublin's High Court said on Thursday. 
 
 Marie Fleming, a 59-year-old former university lecturer who is completely paralysed, made an impassioned plea last month to establish the right of her partner of 18 years to help her die, an act that could currently see him jailed in mainly Roman Catholic Ireland. 
 
 A 'right to die' debate has played out through recent high-profile court cases in neighbouring Britain, where three people all failed in bids to win legal assistance to die. Assisted suicide is only permitted in four European countries: Belgium; Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. 
 
 Judge Nicholas Kearns said Fleming was the most remarkable witness any member of the court had encountered and acknowledged that her life has been "rendered miserable" after being "ravaged by an insidious disease". 
 
 However he said it would be impossible to tailor legislation governing assisted suicide on an individual basis and doing so would be harmful to the public interest in protecting the most vulnerable members of society. 
 
 "There are no words to express the difficulty we had in arriving at this decision," Kearns said, reading a summary of the 121-page judgement. 
 
 "Yet the fact remains that if this court were to unravel a thread of this law by even the most limited constitutional adjudication in her favour, it would - or at least might - open a Pandora's box which would be impossible to close." 
 
 "VERY SADDENED" 
 
 Suicide was decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, but the ban on helping someone to commit suicide remains, with a jail sentence of up to 14 years. 
 
 Kearns said he felt sure the state, which agreed to pay all legal costs, would exercise its discretion in a humane and sensitive fashion in deciding whether to prosecute if Fleming were to be assisted in taking her own life. 
 
 The mother of two adult children had told the court in a composed manner last month how her life had become totally undignified and too painful to bear, and said she had planned every detail, including funeral arrangements. 
 
 Her partner hugged and kissed her after the judgement was handed out and, reading a statement on her behalf outside the court, her solicitor said Fleming greatly appreciated the enormous support she had received from members of the public. 
 
 "Obviously Marie is very disappointed and saddened at today's outcome, and feels it would be inappropriate at the present time to discuss any specific legal aspects of the case having regard to the likelihood of an appeal," solicitor Bernadette Parte said. 
 
 A recent poll found that large majorities of west Europeans favour the legalisation of assisted suicide. 
 
 As well as in the four European countries, assisted suicide is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington. 
 
 The issue of amending the Irish constitution has also been highlighted recently following the death of a woman who was refused an abortion of her dying foetus, re-igniting a debate that has divided the country for decades. ||||| Woman loses assisted suicide case 
 
 MARY CAROLAN 
 
 A severely disabled woman in the final stages of multiple sclerosis has lost her landmark High Court challenge to the absolute ban on assisted suicide. 
 
 The three-judge High Court ruled today the absolute ban is justified to protect vulnerable others from involuntary death and does not breach Marie Fleming's personal autonomy and equality rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights. 
 
 A "real risk" of removing the ban was that, even with rigorous safeguards, it "would be impossible to ensure that the aged, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted, the rejected, the lonely, the impulsive, the financially compromised and emotionally vulnerable would not avail of option in order to avoid a sense of being a burden on their family and society", it said. 
 
 The court also found the Director of Public Prosecutions could not issue guidelines setting out what facts she would consider in deciding whether to prosecute cases of assisted suicide. 
 
 Only the Oireachtas can change the law and it would be unconstitutional for the DPP to effect a change in the law by issuing guidelines which would have the effect of the law not being enforced, it said. 
 
 However, it added, if there was "reliable" evidence after an assisted suicide of compliance with guidelines such as those set out by the UK DPP in relation to assisted suicide prosecutions, the court said it believed the DPP here would excerise her discretion "in this of all cases" in a "a humane and sensitive fashion". 
 
 Giving the court's judgment, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, said the court regarded Ms Fleming as "in many ways the most remarkable witness" all three judges had ever been privileged to encounter. 
 
 "Her courage in adversity is both humbling and inspiring" he said. 
 
 If the court could tailor-make a solution which would suit the needs of Ms Fleming alone without any possible implications for third parties or society at large, there might be a good deal to be said for her Artice 40.3.2 case [relating to personal autonomy]," he said. "But this court cannot be so satisfied." 
 
 Given the public importance of the issues raised in the case, the court said it would award costs to Ms Fleming against the State and DPP. 
 
 Outside court, Ms Fleming, in a statement read on her behalf by her solicitor, said she was "very disappointed and saddened" at the outcome. 
 
 Ms Fleming’s solicitor Bernadette Peart thanked the court and other legal teams involved for giving the case a full and speedy hearing, given her client’s circumstances. 
 
 She said: "Obviously Marie is very disappointed and saddened at today’s outcome and feels it would be inappropriate at the present time to discuss any specific legal or factual aspects of the case having regard to the likelihood of an appeal." 
 
 Ms Fleming, a 59-year-old former lecturer living in Co Wicklow, had asked the court for orders allowing her be lawfully helped take her own life at a time of her choosing so as to avoid what she fears will be a distressing and undignified death. 
 
 She argued, in her very particular circumstances, the blanket ban on assisted suicide in Section 2.2 of the Criminal Law Suicide Act 1993 breached her personal rights under the Constitution and ECHR. 
 
 The State contended, while the ban may be unfair to Ms Fleming, it was a justified and proportionate measure necessary to protect vulnerable people from involuntary death. 
 
 Ms Fleming, who is confined to a wheelchair, was in court today with her partner Tom Curran and other members of her family to hear the decision. It is expected she will appeal the 120-page judgment of the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Paul Carney and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan to the Supreme Court. 
 
 Among the issues raised in the case was whether the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination require provision for assisted suicide in circumstances such as those of Ms Fleming despite the public policy of preserving the right to life. 
 
 Another central issue was of equality before the law. Ms Fleming argued the blanket ban was discriminatory as it meant she, as a disabled person, could not be lawfully assisted take her own life when an able-bodied person could lawfully take their own life. 
 
 She had told the court Mr Curran is willing to help her end her life but she did not want him to be at risk of prosecution. 
 
 The court was told doctors believe Ms Fleming may die within months and is unlikely to live beyond two years. 
 
 Diagnosed with MS in 1986, her condition has deteriorated to a point where she is confined to a wheelchair with limbs paralysed, suffers acute pain and has difficulty swallowing. She fears she will ultimately be unable to communicate and will die a “horrible” death. ||||| NI attorney general considers appealing against judgment that could see women being allowed terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest 
 
 A high court judge has ruled that Northern Ireland’s almost outright ban on abortion breaches the human rights of women and girls, including rape victims. 
 
 The historic judgment, delivered in Belfast on Monday, could lead to women and girls who are the victims of rape and incest as well those suffering from fatal foetal abnormalities having terminations in Northern Irish hospitals. 
 
 The Royal College of Midwives has welcomed the landmark judgement in Belfast High Court. Breedagh Hughes, the RCM’s Northern Ireland Director, said it would give some legal protection for all health professionals faced with the possibility of carrying out terminations in local hospitals 
 
 Hughes said: “Today’s ruling is extremely welcome. It now gives midwives and other health professionals legal protection and a release from the fear of prosecution. This will enable midwives to offer women who have a diagnosis of fatal foetal anomaly the appropriate care, support and advice that they also have often been denied because of the Assembly’s inertia.” 
 
 Hughes said that the failure of local politicians to legislate in favour of some limited forms of abortion had put her members and other medical staff at risk of arrest and prosecution 
 
 But Northern Ireland’s attorney general later said he was considering whether to appeal the ruling. 
 
 At present, under a 19th-century law, local medical teams could be jailed for life for carrying out abortions even in these circumstances. Unlike the rest of the UK, the Abortion Act 1967 has never applied to Northern Ireland and since devolution was restored the Stormont assembly has resisted any attempt to relax the near-total ban on terminations in local hospitals. 
 
 Abortions are only permitted in the region’s health service if the life of a mother is directly under threat or in cases in which there would be lasting long-term negative effects on her health by continuing with the pregnancy. 
 
 Real reform of Northern Ireland's abortion laws is still a long way off Read more 
 
 In his ground-breaking ruling and referring to cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality, Mr Justice Horner told the high court in Belfast: “In the circumstances, given this issue is unlikely to be grasped by the legislature in the foreseeable future, and the entitlement of citizens of Northern Ireland to have their convention rights protected by the courts, I conclude that the article eight rights of women in Northern Ireland who are pregnant with fatal foetal abnormalities or who are pregnant as a result of sexual crime are breached by the impugned provisions.” 
 
 Referring to political inaction at Stormont over the abortion question, Horner also suggested that a referendum might have to be held to enact his conclusions on reforming local abortion law. 
 
 The judge said that without a referendum it was impossible to know how the majority of people in Northern Ireland viewed abortion. 
 
 Welcoming the judgment, Les Allamby, the head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), said: “In taking this case we sought to change the law so that women and girls in Northern Ireland have the choice of accessing a termination of pregnancy locally in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormalities, rape or incest, without being criminalised for doing so. 
 
 “We are please that today that the high court has held that the current law is incompatible with human rights and has ruled in the commission’s favour. 
 
 “Today’s result is historic, and will be welcomed by many of the vulnerable women and girls who have been faced with these situations. It was important for the commission to take this challenge in its own name, in order to protect women and girls in Northern Ireland and we are delighted with the result.” 
 
 John Larkin QC, meanwhile, said he was “profoundly disappointed by this decision and I am considering grounds for appeal”. 
 
 
 
 The attorney general came under sustained criticism from pro-choice campaigners three years ago when he called for a Stormont investigation into the opening of the Marie Stopes Clinic. He even offered politicians advice on how to ensure no kind of termination was carried out by the clinic’s Belfast office. 
 
 His intervention prompted claims that he was overstepping his role as a lawmaker in the province. 
 
 Back in June, a number of organisations and individuals made submissions to the Belfast high court. They included Sarah Ewart, who went public about having to travel to London to access termination services in 2013 after her first baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, a severe brain malformation. 
 
 In her case, the NIHRC had argued that forcing women like Ewart to leave the jurisdiction away from support networks amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and that the current law was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, violating the human rights of women and girls. 
 
 Northern Ireland's abortion laws: share your experiences Read more 
 
 Ewart welcomed the judge’s ruling on Monday and said she hoped other women would no longer have leave home for England in order to get a termination. 
 
 She said: “I, and many women like me, have been failed by our politicians. First, they left me with no option but to go to England for medical care. Then, by their refusal to change the law, they left me with no option but to go to the courts on my and other women’s behalf. 
 
 “I am an ordinary woman who suffered a very personal family tragedy, which the law in Northern Ireland turned into a living nightmare.” 
 
 Bernadette Smyth, who heads the anti-abortion group Precious Life, branded the high court judgment “undemocratic”. 
 
 She claimed the ruling could “open the floodgates” for abortion on demand not just in limited circumstances – a charge the NIHRC has rebutted, pointing out that its court case was not about extending the 1967 act to the province. 
 
 Northern Ireland’s Department of Justice, which the commission took to court over the abortion issue, has six weeks to decide whether to appeal. 
 
 At least 1,000 women and girls from Northern Ireland travel to hospitals in Britain for terminations every year. Official figures for 2013, for instance, suggest 800 Northern Irish females had abortions in Britain – although that number is regarded as an underestimate. Among the 800 was a 13-year-old who became pregnant through incest. 
 
 The only law applying to abortion in Northern Ireland is the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which contains a life sentence for anyone convicted of carrying out a termination even in cases of rape or incest. 
 
 Amnesty International said it was shameful that laws on abortion “date back to the 19th century and carry the harshest criminal penalties in Europe”. 
 
 Grainne Teggart, of Amnesty’s My Body, My Rights campaign, said: “Today’s court decision is a damning indictment of the Northern Ireland executive’s failure to prioritise women’s healthcare. It’s shameful that the courts have had to step in because politicians have repeatedly failed Northern Ireland’s women.” NEW
– A 59-year-old woman in Ireland paralyzed with severe multiple sclerosis has lost her court fight against the nation's ban on assisted suicide, reports the Irish Times. Marie Fleming sought permission to end her life with the help of her partner of 18 years, but Dublin's High Court rejected the request, reports Reuters: "There are no words to express the difficulty we had in arriving at this decision," wrote one judge. "Yet the fact remains that if this court were to unravel a thread of this law by even the most limited constitutional adjudication in her favour, it would—or at least might—open a Pandora's box which would be impossible to close." The judge called Fleming "in many ways the most remarkable witness" he and his fellow judges had ever encountered, and the court ordered the state to pay her legal costs. Fleming's lawyer read a statement on her behalf, saying she was "very disappointed and saddened" at the ruling. She can still appeal.