Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Good afternoon, good evening or good night, depending on where the witnesses are. I thank them for joining us. This has been an interesting discussion.

I will discuss the points made by a number of witnesses about the difficulty of the process that we are engaged in and in which other jurisdictions and parliaments have engaged. One of the key questions that I find myself coming back to continually is that of whose ethics and morality we are discussing. Are they based on centuries of experience, for instance, in the medical profession, or are they based on, for argument’s sake, a Judeo-Christian belief system or some other belief system? That can often shroud the issue and cause me in particular to ask further questions about the basis of the ethical or moral position. Having examined this process closely over the past while – the Chair will have to remind me whether it has been seven months, as I cannot recall and it feels much longer – it is similar to treading the needle while blindfolded and riding a horse backwards through a darkened forest.

It is almost impossible with the level of evidence that has been provided to us on a continuous basis. One of the key questions which has arisen this morning - I thank Professor White for doing so - is to introduce the argument or conversation about facts versus opinion. That is fundamental to this entire process. Despite the best will in the world, we have heard dozens upon dozens of evidence-based factual remarks and dozens upon dozens of papers have been submitted to this committee but, in equal measure, we have heard dozens upon dozens of witnesses' opinions not necessarily backed up with evidence to support their point. Of course, I would take professional evidence any day because it is important to inform the process but sometimes - I have to say I have heard it this morning - opinions are stated without evidence, or at least evidence presented or referred to. The key question I have at this point in time - it is to all witnesses but, with respect, it may be only answerable by Professor White - is to ask whether Irish legislators can protect the medical profession and recognise the need under a very specific set of circumstances that I do not expect all witnesses to understand? This committee has derived itself from a court case where a specific person tried to exit the State to avail of assisted dying and was stopped by our law which prohibits a person who is unable to end their own life to avail of the support from another person to do so. That is the fundamental question as far as I am concerned.

All that said, the key for me to try to understand whether we can protect the citizenry from the anecdotal stories which have been presented and the professional remarks which have been made about other jurisdictions like Canada, where I believe somebody referred to it as a runaway train? Whether that is appropriate or not, I am not sure, but it was referred to as such. Can we limit this to a very small number of circumstances in very specific cases, with medical ethical guidance in place to support a person in the process of making that decision? I am sorry if it is a rather long-winded question but perhaps Professor White, or any other of our witnesses, may wish to come in to answer those questions.