Professor Desmond O'Neill:

That is very much the case. I referenced Harvey Chochinov's very major study on this. There are always elements that can be somewhat challenging. It is very challenging to interpret how death may be. History is written by the survivors. One of the most illuminating pieces on the challenges of how this is viewed is by three palliative care physicians in The Lancet using Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Ilyich" to say how the relatives might prioritise pain control over independence whereas the patient with the illness may prefer having some pain with a clearer mind. They discussed how in the "Death of Ivan Ilyich" what Ilyich wants is for someone to sit with him and be with him. The answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes".

I have written of how one of the dangers of advocacy is that sometimes, to make our case we may overstate our case. In the Hospice Foundation surveys, while elements of care can be found that are not satisfactory - we are dealing with human imperfection - death is largely well handled. I find it challenging when I hear public figures say that the Irish do not talk about death because they do when the time is right. We are also elliptical people, we often talk in metaphors and euphemisms, but we do talk about death. I have had two conversations in the past 48 hours with people about how intense their care should be, both of whom died without either crash call or tubes. One was 90 years, the other 87 years, and in both cases I spoke to the patient not to their relatives.

The problem is that within human rights there are hierarchies and there are new rights which accrue around the peripheries of the core. The problem of the right to die with dignity is that unfortunately it has been adopted as a slogan by one side on this debate as a synonym for assisted suicide. One may speak of a right to die, but we will all die.