John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

As we come towards the end of our work as a committee, I am struck by the quality of the contributions. Without wanting to cast any judgment on anybody, the best wine seems to be coming towards the end. The contributions and papers last week and this have been particularly interesting, stimulating and thought-provoking.

We have a national office for research ethics in Ireland which is more concerned with bioethics and research. I like the Danish model of a national council on ethics. I do not know if we have ever considered that notion. There would be a big argument about who should be on it, but if we established, or recommended the establishment of, a council on ethics, there would need to be very detailed consideration by experts - the word "expert" is not very popular these days. That is the model I like.

I have a couple of questions. The Danish council only considered Oregon and the Netherlands. We have been looking at quite a number of different models, most recently Australia and New Zealand. I want to be careful with language but I felt those models had the tightest regulation and dealt with the end of end-of-life cases. The models related to end-of-life illness and beyond palliative care issues as opposed to other choices.

I have some questions and comments on the Danish model. The Danish report refers to where it would be impossible to determine whether a wish for euthanasia has the necessary depth and persistence. What one's mental or emotional state and how enduring that is is a valid point. Perhaps we could hear a little bit more about that.

A position adopted by me and others on this committee was that we would not name particular conditions. We do not want to associate them with euthanasia or assisted dying. That was done last week, when witnesses cited a particular neurological illness. Other people live full lives to the end and make the choice to live life to the end. That has been one of my big learnings. From the start I have been very strong about not associating particular conditions with a choice of euthanasia or assisted dying because that is a very negative thing to do psychologically for society in general.

The Danish model states it would be impossible to offer euthanasia to those members of patient groups who may wish to avail of it without people in the same life situation being affected and burdened unreasonably. That is a point with which I strongly agree.

It is so that we do not label particular ailments as being more conducive or more deserving of consideration of that choice.

Has anybody any comments to make on what I see as the narrowness of focus of the Danish model? Do other countries have ethics councils such as that in Denmark? Have these been used in respect of the issue? If the Danes had broadened their research to include, for example, Australia and New Zealand, their findings might have been similar or dissimilar. It is up to the Chair who responds.