John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions and my colleagues for their questions. I will tease out one or two issues. I am conscious this is session 1 and in nine months time we will look back on this. It struck me that if the rest of the natural world was asked for its view on humanity, end of life and assisted dying, its perspective might be very interested in a minority of humanity and it may wonder why human beings spend so much time agonising over this issue, when we have just wreaked havoc on the rest of the natural world without really thinking too long about it. It is a fleeting thought that came across my mind.

I will tease out disability not being a ground for eligibility, because I am interested in the matter. The fact a neutrality has been expressed is positive, because it seems the witnesses have come to the committee with some degree of an open mind. I am interested in teasing that out from the following perspective, because in our private sessions - without breaching any kind of confidentiality - there were conversations one would normally associate with the topic of assisted dying. Many lay people think of assisted dying in their own lives with regard to ending up with a particular ailment or being diagnosed with a particular condition and wanting the option to choose and to make a decision. One of the lessons we have learned from discussions in private session is certain conditions may have been stereotypically associated with those kinds of decisions and dilemmas. That is a dangerous assumption to make, because there are plenty of people living with the most appalling conditions who live their lives with great dignity, purpose, fulfilment and reward and fulfil their potential in their own way.

I am interested in what is said about disability not being grounds for eligibility and yet, one of the points I will take away today is that the question of assisted dying has a more specific resonance with people who have disabilities, because of a general vulnerability they experience in society with regard to rights, care and supports. I do not want to have misinterpreted that. The trap I do not want to fall into is that of a bunch of able-bodied people making a law or recommending one way or the other with regard to legislation, without truly looking at life through the eyes of those who do not have that ability. This is the core of my question, in that it brings us back to disability somehow being a ground for eligibility. It is a genuine question.

Disability is not one of the grounds, as mentioned in Ms Gibney's opening remarks. What are the conditions and protocols? We will tease this out in the next nine months. What would the conditions be, if disability or a stereotypical condition is not one of them? If we do not list X, Y and Z as conditions - I do not ever see us doing that - what are the protocols? The witnesses gestured towards a person reaching an unbearable point in life. Do they see what I am driving at?