Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will stick with Dr. Mills - Mr. Kelly may wish to come in on this issue as well. I think it is fair to say that Dr. Mills reserves particular contempt for the idea that we might fail to introduce a law because of how that law might change in the future. He seems to be advising us to hedge against the possibility of the Supreme Court changing the law in the future and cling to the legislative nurse for fear of getting a worse Supreme Court perhaps in the future. Is it not fair to say that it is always appropriate for legislators to consider how attitudes might change as a result of a change in the law? For example, there has been a lot of reference to abortion. There is clear evidence that abortion rates have gone up as a result of a change in the law. Changes happen as a result of new dynamics brought about by a change in the law. It might well be considered appropriate to factor that in. In the context of Dr. Mills mentioning, for example, the legal protections and the categories he named, is there not an admission of that category of person who feels that, if the law changes in such a way that it allows certain people to have their lives ended legally, with the permission of the State, that changes how people see themselves in the context of illness and how others see them? It may not be a legal issue but it is a philosophical issue and perhaps an anthropological issue that everybody is entitled to wrestle with, is it not?