Mr. Niall Brunell:

The question was about the removal of treatment decisions from enduring powers of attorney in the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill. It does not depart from the policy positions in the 2015 Act. It is chiefly about procedural improvements and there are two strands to those improvements,in the main. One is procedural improvements and efficiencies, removing red tape. For example, throughout the Act we are removing a number of mandatory referrals to the courts system where that is just not appropriate or necessary or would incur undue cost or burden. The other strand is improved safeguards. There is a couple of junctures in the Act where it is necessary to balance the removal of red tape and improved efficiency and safeguards. During the preparation of the Bill, we received feedback from clinicians in the HSE regarding EPAs that there are superior provisions in Part 8 of the Act around the making of advanced healthcare directives than in Part 7, relating to EPAs. In some instances, some of those decisions will quite literally be, on-the-spot, life or death decision around a person's care. The advice that we received from clinical experts was that there could not be too many cooks in that scenario. What was needed was one person who had authority. If there were multiple people with authority, it would introduce a lack of clarity. That could have adverse consequences for the person at the end of the day. We were also advised that the processes set out in Part 8 are much more extensive around where there is an ambiguity as to what a person's will and preference regarding treatment might be and that Part 8 offers better safeguards in those scenarios for a person's safety and for respect for a person's will and preference. That was the basis of the decision to remove treatment decisions from the EPA process.