Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to return to some of the issues that have been raised and perhaps the witnesses will come in on them. My first question is for Ms Woods from the Department of Justice. My impression from a long time back is that when the law was changed on suicide in some ways it was about trying to alleviate the pain and suffering of families and to deal with the stigma in that area without, at the same time, validating the decision itself. I want to go back to what Ms Woods said about what is not prohibited being somehow permitted. Is there a difference in law as to how, for instance, I would be treated if I were to interfere to prevent someone taking that act? I know that in other situations if I were to interfere with somebody doing something that is permitted I might be subject to a criminal or civil action for assault. What exactly would happen if I were to interfere to prevent a person taking their own life? The reason I am asking this question is to get assistance on whether we see this as something falling short of someone's legal right to do what they want, even if it is not a constitutional right as we all know. There seems to be a different legal attitude to doing what is permitted in this area as opposed to what would be permitted in other areas. Perhaps Ms Woods will assist us with this.

In the Marie Fleming case, the court said that legislation subject to safeguards might be possible. The safeguards being presented today are against certain types of wrongs that others might do, such as coercive control of a family member and the abuse of a person's dignity and autonomy by pushing them in a particular direction. It seems to me that so far we have been speaking about safeguards in this area. Had the court in mind, and does IHREC have in mind, the other issue against which safeguards might be needed? This is the attitudinal change that comes about in society no matter what type of other positive supports are there. People do not just feel they are a burden because someone is trying to coerce them into a particular place. There is the potential sullen resentment of the one who is loved but perhaps does not love back. No law and no set of provisions can change these attitudes sometimes. These are the very types of attitudes that might cause people in a given situation to feel they are a burden.

This brings us to the equality point. I am trying to tease out what Ms Gibney wants. She said that she believes it is possible to legislate for it but that IHREC does not recommend a change, at least not at this point. From everything that has been said today what I am hearing is that IHREC believes the law should change but provided there are other positives in place, for example, to alleviate the disadvantage that people with disabilities face. If IHREC does not recommend a change in law, albeit with some positives being there at the same time, why does Ms Gibney say it is possible to legislate for it? If IHREC does not recommend the change, given that Ms Gibney is saying it is possible to legislate for it, what would be the reasons IHREC has not yet come to a view on why it does not recommend it? Ms Gibney has said it can be legislated for but that she wants certain things to be also on the table in people's lives, with regard to validating the full inclusion of people with disabilities, for example.

If assisted dying is introduced for whatever category of people, such as, perhaps, in the limited situation that Deputy Gino Kenny described, is it not a fact that from the moment this happens the law and society would take a different view of some categories of people with regard to the value they put on their lives? Does this not of itself raise an equality issue in two ways? One is that the State would take the view that in certain situations it is okay with someone's life ending. There would be a lack of equality in how the State views people. The other way it raises an equality issue, despite what Ms Gibney has said, is if we make it available for certain categories of people only, such as someone whom a certain number of doctors say in all likelihood will not live beyond a certain period of time. Ms Gibney may call it a safeguard that she does not want to see it legislated for on the grounds of disability alone but a person with a disability might well say that they have heard what has been said about safeguards; that if the law permits it for certain people, it should also permit it for them; and that if we respect them, we should not be so paternalistic as to say they should not be able to access it.

I have asked a number of questions and I would be grateful for the best attempts of the witnesses to answer them. They are sincerely put.