Dr. Conor Casey:

Just to clarify that on paragraph 21 of my briefing document I was referring to the divisional High Court's discussion of potential dangers of liberalisation. The Supreme Court did not engage in the same very considered setting out of concerns. That was in the divisional High Court. I would note that Mr. Justice Hogan is now on the Supreme Court. On the point of conditions, I think my colleagues would agree that Article 40.1, the equality provision in the Constitution, is a bit of a messy area of law. I think the starting point is that the Oireachtas has a great deal of leeway - some people say far too much - to make distinctions and discriminate between different groups of persons.

There is some important commentary in the High Court judgment. It discusses the combined effect of Article 40.3 and the equality provision, which "commits the State to valuing equally the life of all persons", so it even italicised the "equally" and "all".

It goes on to say:

In the eyes of the Constitution, the last days of the life of an elderly, terminally ill and disabled patient facing death have the same value, possess the same intrinsic human dignity and naturally enjoy the same protection as the life of the healthy young person on the cusp of adulthood and in the prime of their life.

That would be relevant to trying to set neutral conditions were the Oireachtas minded to do that. The divisional court is rich in obiter commentary that would have to be reckoned with.