In the reports of the twelve cases that were assessed as careful by the review committee, and therefore never ended up with the Public Prosecution Service, some similar details can be found with the case on which the judge must now judge.
The committee, for example, was of the opinion that the doctor could not unambiguously come to the conviction that there was a voluntary and well-considered request. The patient also had an unclear written directive and she had never asked the doctor for euthanasia.
The review committee also caught on to the detail that the patient was given a sleeping aid in her coffee prior to euthanasia without being told. So the patient did not know that the euthanasia was about to take place.
This is very similar to the course of a 2018 euthanasia case with a man in his sixties without a clearly written advance directive. He too could not explain his request orally. Moreover, the man ate and drank everything that was handed to him. So this patient himself drank the drink with the deadly substance, while he was not told what would happen.
Pre-medication was also used in another case in 2018, in which euthanasia was granted to a deeply demented woman in her sixties. There is no evidence that the woman was aware that she would die that day.
In a response, the Regional Review Committee on Euthanasia states: “The RTE assesses each case on the specific facts and circumstances that play a role in it. Opinions on apparently comparable cases may therefore differ. The facts and circumstances relevant to the outcome of the judgment are described. in our decision. “