Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our witnesses and thank them. I want to talk to them about the issue of barriers in society and the ableist structure of society. I had it in my head to say the barriers and challenges of our ableist society. but barriers alone is perhaps a more appropriate way of saying it. A lot of these are very external to the individual. The coercive and destructive nature of that ableist society has been well ventilated, and there are concerns about it in this committee. It is not just in this committee. In many other committees, members have spoken about how Ireland is not a friendly or supportive place. The witnesses have talked about it very clearly here today as well.

However, where my head is at and what I am thinking now, and I am in a similar position and exploring similar things to Deputy Kenny, is that I agree with the comments about living well but I do not necessarily see living well and dying well as mutually exclusive. I do not see how investing in one will automatically mean we are not investing in the other. I do not see them as mutually exclusive and I would welcome the witnesses' views on that. On the comparison to palliative care, we need massive investment in our palliative care system and it is not where it should be, but that does not necessarily mean that we should not still progress with medically assisted dying in appropriate circumstances. For me, part of it is about exploring what those appropriate circumstances are.

Mr. Kearns spoke about the concerns around subjective, undefined phrases of dying with dignity, and I agree with that. However, echoing what Deputy Kenny said, part of the challenge for us is to try to find a way to draft this legislation that is not subjective, undefined and does not provide that grey area that people with disabilities might fall into with regard to coercion or the invisible hand of the State coercing them into that. Similar to what Deputy Kenny said, what if we are able to provide objective, clear lines that state this relates to a terminal illness and it is a set time period – those kinds of protections? It will be small and perhaps exclude many people who want this option. Would that not protect against the concerns the witnesses are talking about regarding misuse or coercion?

Going back to my first point, living well and dying well are not mutually exclusive. We need to invest in living well, but the focus on that should not prevent us from also ensuring people can die well. I welcome the witnesses’ thoughts on that mutual exclusivity and the interaction between those elements. On that subjective, undefined piece, if we were able to draw it tightly enough, would that alleviate the witnesses’ concerns?