Dr. Andrea Mulligan:

What is useful about the Fleming case is that it does a very good job of going through all the big risks we need to consider.

In the first instance, it states that the court is only a court and cannot put in place safeguards. Fundamentally, that is why it was not going to go there. The judgment probably also raises flags about whether or not the Oireachtas wants to go there. I am now into the territory of opinion. It is a very contested and very difficult issue. The big issues around a change in culture are significant. Ultimately, this is about whether or not there will be a regime for the State to help people to die. It is not about people choosing for themselves to die; it is about the State helping them to die. It also means having a regime under which people, who may or may not be medical practitioners, can offer someone death as an option. We have to think about that. Is there some way to have death on the table without ever creating a situation in which someone feels pressured into choosing death?

That is the fundamental issue. I would never want to see anyone in a situation in which he or she chooses death for any reason other than his or her own genuine desire. The problem is that people can say they are a burden to their family. People may be a burden to their family but I do not think we would ever want individuals to decide they are going to die because they are a burden either to their family or the State. The question is whether we can create a situation whereby there is safeguarding against that scenario. Can we ensure against a culture shift that changes the narrative around that? I do not think any of us would want to live in a country in which the narrative involves saying to people: "Well, at this stage, you are a burden." I do not think we would ever want to be there. The challenge for the Legislature and for the country in grappling with questions like this is how to stop that happening.