John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. One of the problems in the committee is that when new witnesses some in, and I speak for myself, I find myself oscillating, which I think is reasonable, forwards and back - I will not say between fixed positions - but it is interesting. That is why this committee was established. It is to tease some of these issues out. Therefore, if I come with a perspective that is counter to something that has been said, it is from a respectful and curious stance.

For me, it has been important that we have avoided naming specific neurological conditions because from the start, certainly, I have felt that this is connected to opinion polls. Some of the witnesses cited opinion polls. Politicians will tell you all you need to know about opinion polls and how nebulous and meaningless they are, to some degree, and how important they are. We live off them as well. That is another point. When people are asked a question about whether they think there should be assisted dying and 76% say "Yes", if they had the ability to listen to everything that has been going on here for the last few months, I think we would get different perspectives. We might get higher or lower. However, we are now into the minutiae of asking "When?", "For whom?", "Under what circumstances?", "Who would administer?", "What would the consequences be?", "What would the restrictions be?" and all of that.

One of the things I was very strong on was not mentioning neurological conditions because, typically, when people are asked about assisted dying, they have specific conditions in mind. I have always made the point, and I reiterate it here again, that there are people with the neurological conditions that have been mentioned today who live very full lives and who are absolute exemplars of human living to people. That is why I have always avoided associating assisted dying with specific neurological conditions. People continue to live full lives with neurological conditions. That is not to dismiss neurological conditions as a basis for the conversation we are having. It is that we grow; I am 58 years old. I underwent pretty serious surgery almost a year ago. I can say at 58 that it is the first time in my life that I understand. I cannot claim to understand or have grasped the whole thing, but I grasp more than I ever did in my life that I have one life. It has taken me 58 years to figure that out. There is one chance at this and you really want to exhaust every last drop and really squeeze the pips out of it. Would I feel the same if I had a severe condition that was really life-restricting? I do not know, but I know I see life in a different kind of way as a result of my health having been challenged.

I have a couple of questions. One of the things I am interested in is our basis and understanding of what life is all about, whether that was influenced by the Greek and Roman philosophers or the age of enlightenment. Now, it has all kind of averted to the scientific advances in the 20th century with regard to medicine that have helped to prolong life. However, it also impacts diseases and illnesses as a result of life being prolonged, and maybe we are experiencing things that simply were not experienced, certainly at the time when people were outlining a philosophy of the meaning of life. That is an interesting thing to look at. Life has changed fundamentally. Certainly, western life has changed fundamentally. I would like the witnesses' reaction to that in terms of medical developments but also around how other conditions come with long life.

Ms Lazar said there is now a moral imperative to consider legislating for assisted dying. Will she explain what the moral imperative is? Dr. Dalton said that capacity can be impeded. Will she give a few examples of how a person's capacity can be impeded?