Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the guests. I have to say what has surprised me so far this evening is the confidence with which two out of three of our New Zealand guests are presenting their situation, given that this legislation is only up and running for two years, which is a wet week. I think it was Zhou Enlai who, when asked about the French Revolution and what he thought of it, was supposed to have said, "It is too early to say". What we are getting is much more caution about those jurisdictions. Where it is going on longer, we have heard from people like Professor Theo Boer in the Netherlands, who was involved in the administration of it. He has talked about the way in which social attitudes have changed over time. We have heard about the runaway train of certain states in Canada where the number of deaths through euthanasia or assisted suicide is up to 7% in some places.

I am surprised at the witnesses' confidence and their "nothing to see here" kind of reassurance. That said, I take them to be sincere in what they are promoting but I would have suggested some sort of caution, given that there are many people from whom we have heard, medical and other experts - not least psychiatrists from Ireland in recent times - who worry about the difficulty of separating out those who might have mental health challenges, and how they might fall through the cracks. We have had palliative care specialists who worry about the implications of this for their ability to deliver high-quality psychological, social and emotional support. It is not just a question of the funding of palliative care but the way the whole attitude to life gets changed when the State is willing to see the deliberate ending of some people's lives as a contemplatable option.

If I am not mistaken, I will make a comment in passing to the minister, Mr. Seymour. Is it not the case that he already wants to see a widening of the grounds on which euthanasia or assisted suicide would be available? I think he has talked about a grave and irremediable condition. Is he in a position to say that he absolutely opposes it on grounds where there might be disability or mental health situations as the basic reason for asking for it? That is my first question.

Dr. Good mentioned "practitioner intolerance". Can she tell us whether medical professionals are now more likely to be supportive of euthanasia or assisted suicide in New Zealand? What is she talking about when she talks about "practitioner intolerance"? It is a concern if some people do not or do not want to respect the supposed guardrails. Does that not suggest a push to disrespect so-called safeguards? One of the issues we are looking at here very carefully is whether safeguards can actually work, and whether they are okay in theory but do not actually work in practice.

It is a concern that none of what Dr. Donnelly has offered so far seems to be contradicted by Dr. Good. Does Dr. Good accept the examples she has given of a person having a rift in his relationship with his sister being devastated by the suggestion by a family member of euthanasia? There was another situation of families withdrawing support. On this question of the gradual changing of people's attitudes towards each other, has Dr. Good any concerns about that or is it perhaps too early to say, given that New Zealand only has this legislation for two years?

Finally, I want to ask Dr. Donnelly a question. I know Australia is a faraway place from New Zealand, and not as near as many people think it is but as far as I can see, we do not have anybody among our guests this evening to analyse or give an objective overview of what is happening in Australia. Did Dr. Donnelly, in her analysis and proposals in New Zealand, discover anything about the way in which this has occurred in Australia over the last three, four or maybe five years since it was introduced, which could inform our discussions? I thank the panel for attempting to answer those questions to the best of their ability.