Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. I will start by echoing the words of the previous speakers and the Chair that this is a very important committee and it is very positive it has been set up. It is ten years since Marie Fleming's case. It strikes me that the Supreme Court invited the Oireachtas to look at this issue by saying it was a matter for the Oireachtas. It has taken us ten years to finally get around to having this committee. There are plenty of other areas where the courts have said that something is a matter for legislation and the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas has been very slow to pick up the challenge and live up to its responsibilities. I am glad this committee is finally in place and we can dig into the important subtleties and nuances of what will be a very complex and difficult debate. We have seen much of that here in the talk of safeguards and, perhaps to be a little simplistic, of balancing rights and in some ways competing rights.

I thank Deputy Gino Kenny because his work has contributed significantly to getting us to this point. It is very positive that the committee is in place and some credit is due to him.

I will pick up on a couple of points. I am conscious that disability rights advocates, who will speak to the committee in later sessions, are much better placed to answer these questions than I am. If we are looking at the importance of self-determination and autonomy, Marie Fleming wanted to make a choice for herself around her pain and suffering but that was denied to her essentially because of her disability. She needed assistance to achieve that autonomy and self-determination. Is there an element of regulation being the better option to preserve that self-determination or autonomy? I know we spoke about the risks but I would like to dig into that issue a bit more.

If we are trying to protect vulnerable people and they are making a choice based on self-determination and autonomy, is it not better to recognise that and provide regulations? I am conscious that we need to ensure it is actual self-determination. Ms Woods referred to how complex and dangerous this becomes when someone else gets involved, and I appreciate that.

Is there an inconsistency in the court judgments in this area? We have essentially allowed physician-assisted death in cases where death is not directly the intention of the action and intervention. It is not the direct consequence but it is ultimately the full intention of the actions. There have been cases where parents wanted their children to receive more treatment than doctors were willing to give and the courts stepped in at that point as well. Is there some inconsistency there?

I have a follow-on question for Ms Woods that picks up on what Deputy Gino Kenny said about aiding, abetting and procuring. Where someone accompanies someone else to Switzerland, does simply sitting on the aeroplane with that person fall into the category of aiding, abetting and procuring? If someone has done nothing else and did not book the appointment and so on but is sharing a taxi with the person to the airport and sitting beside him or her on the plane, would that fall under aids, abets and procures?