Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have quite short questions. I will ask my questions and the witnesses can then answer them. I am struck by the case of patients with a bowel obstruction who need to change to a different system. Have the witnesses found that process is too onerous or bureaucratic? Have people missed the boat because there was an additional process that moved the step too far away and meant they could not avail of voluntary assisted dying facilities? Has the bureaucracy associated with the change piece caused trouble?

I refer to the evolution of policy. The witnesses spoke about legislation versus regulation or policy-making,d unexpected unforeseen circumstances and a review. Is there an appetite for a review? I find when difficult things are brought through the Legislature, there is no massive appetite to revisit them. The attitude is that this is what we went to the people with or said we were going to do, therefore we will stay away from this as much as possible. That may be more of a political issue in terms of a timed review. Is there an appetite for change?

In one state there was a public vote. While we have had some successes in Ireland with public votes, I am somewhat loath to repeatedly drag people out and ask them to sell their souls and sorrows in order to be able to access these things. I am a little iffy on that. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on the witnesses on whether having a public vote strengthens the legislation. If there is a public vote and people are in support of it, there is support for it.

Do the witnesses feel that strengthens their hand in doing something like this? There have not been public votes across the world on this. Legislation has just been brought in. Do the witnesses think there is a preferable way to do it? I do not want to put my thoughts on referendums into the witnesses' mouths. Those are my questions.