Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I am glad Mr. Dolan referred to the safeguards being non-legislative. It is what I wrote down on a page at the start of this meeting when I was trying to understand this context. We considered having these sessions with the idea that witnesses would come in and give us an insight as to what safeguards would protect people if legislation were to be introduced. Having been thinking about this aspect over the last few weeks, and especially after I read the witnesses' presentations, the position I have come to is that I get it now.

I get that the safeguards are the other side of it. Then I have to go back to not wanting to delay one in favour of the other because you could be a long time waiting for the State to meet all of those needs before something else comes into play. I have that framed now in terms of adequate living and access to everything needed being a safeguard.

Deputy Kenny referred to circumstances where the committee might suggest that the use of disability as a potential ground for assisted dying would not be recommended. I cannot agree with that because it is too simplistic a view. It would contradict the other stuff around choice. You are creating a bubble around a group and removing all the other stuff spoken about in the context of choice. Choice in how a person lives and cannot just stop with how they die, even if they have not had the opportunity. That choice in death means less if they are without choice in life.

If the legislative framework were in place, I do not see how we could have a provision whereby disability would not be a ground because even some terminal illnesses are framed as disabilities. Somebody with diabetes can, in this State, access disability allowance. They may end up with organ failure, close to death and be then considered terminal. Heart disease is another example. Other things are considered disabilities. On the one hand, I understand the safeguards that need to be in place that are non-legislative in nature, but, on the other, I cannot support a system that carves out disability as a ground because it is problematic. How do you find a ground where the two are supported? We have not figured that out yet. The suggestions put forward, even by legislators, have not involved teasing out that matter. Do the witnesses believe there another way in which that could operate? I cannot imagine that either of the witnesses want the voice removed if the State were to introduce the legislation, because it would come down to the individual rather than the group of people under an organisation or under the umbrella of disability.

Those are my thoughts. I am thinking out loud. Do the witnesses have any comments?