Feasby himself noted that the woman “has not provided any evidence” to contest those assertions, “nor has she identified her medical condition or provided information concerning her symptoms and how they cause her to suffer.”
In his decision, the judge frankly admitted to MV: “I do not know you and I do not know why you seek MAID.” Her reasons for doing so, he wrote, “remain your own because I have respected your autonomy and your privacy.”
While Feasby acknowledged that the parents of the woman will suffer “substantial” harm if she kills herself, the harm she herself will experience “goes to the core of her being,” he argued.
“An injunction would deny MV the right to choose between living or dying with dignity,” he claimed.
“Further, an injunction would put MV in a position where she would be forced to choose between living a life she has decided is intolerable and ending her life without medical assistance,” the judge claimed. “This is a terrible choice that should not be forced on MV as attempting to end her life without medical assistance would put her at increased risk of pain, suffering, and lasting injury.”
Though the ruling set aside the earlier injunction, Feasby said the decision would be stayed for 30 days in order to allow the father to appeal.