Fr. Timothy Bartlett:

I will make some opening comments which Dr. Jones will supplement. It is impossible to address every question and answer it in detail in the time allowed, so I will do my best to touch on several threads running through them. Someone mentioned that life is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be. This is absolutely true and no one in this room does not know this, has not experienced it and has not had to deal with it. As professionals involved in this area, the clergy and faith leaders of all traditions operate in this territory on a daily basis.

Just as it would be wrong to caricature anybody else in this debate I appeal to people not to caricature those in churches, whatever their positions in those churches, as somehow unhuman and unfeeling and detached from their own families and the real circumstances of life including nieces, nephews, and sisters who may have to face these situations. I ask people to accept this.

What we say comes from the midst of this messy situation and is not detached from it in some abstract way. When we confront a messy situation it is then in particular that moral values, laws for society and, in our case, our faith, are critical to guide us through the complexities. In this regard I wish to come back to a question that was raised. It was suggested that if there is a risk of even one woman taking her life in suicide that legislation must be introduced. We need to respond to this with absolute compassion and the greatest professional care possible to protect the person from harming herself and, indeed, another. However, if we believe in the equal right to life of the unborn, as stated in Article 40.3.3°, we should be equally concerned about the direct and intentional killing of an individual human person.

With respect, this brings me to the core of the concern of the Catholic Church in this matter and the concept of widening the possibilities. It is a fundamental human right, not based on faith but based on our very shared humanity and common dignity inherent to us as human beings, that we have a right not to be harmed by another if we are an innocent person and to have our life and its integrity completely respected. The cause of our reaction is the move away from the principle that it is absolutely wrong in any circumstance to directly and intentionally take the life of an innocent person, which is what the X case judgment opens up. This is the dangerous territory opened up in terms of appeal and challenge to any legislation the Oireachtas tries to impose to restrict the terms of the X case judgment. This is our concern. Once this line is crossed morally as a guiding principle then it opens up, and with respect we see this everywhere not least in the State, the pressures and possibilities of other scenarios, such as end of life care. This moral principle is precious, but sometimes moral principles and laws are challenging and difficult. They hold us back from doing what we might think is most compassionate, best or most expedient. This is the thread at the heart of our concern about the X case. It crosses this line in principle. When one starts to legislate one must legislate for this possibility. This is at the heart of it.

With regard to a doctor who might fear going to prison and the issue of guidelines, as we stated in our submission it is possible in Irish law to produce professional guidelines which are reviewable by the courts without getting into the necessity to legislate. I want to say to my colleagues who speak about legislating to give doctors security that in principle there is nothing wrong with this, but once legislation is built on the X case judgment the scope of that judgment must be taken into account and the line will be crossed, because if it is not crossed the legislation will be open to challenge.