Ms Sin?ad Gibney:

I will cover both Deputies' questions. I will be succinct. I will start with Deputy Lahart whom I thank for his questions. He described the steep learning curve and it is very important to highlight that. IHREC shares that steep learning curve. It is very important to manage our expectations about what IHREC is providing evidence on today, namely, our submission to the 2020 Private Members' Bill. It is important to point that out because the safeguards and principles IHREC recommends apply to the particular model described in the Bill. That speaks to the language issues raised by Deputy Lahart around the differentiation between assisted dying versus suicide. In our submission, IHREC identified the two dominant legislative models for providing assistance in dying. These are the Oregon model versus the Benelux model. Beyond the people involved, there is also a distinction that people should be at end of life for the Oregon model versus the Benelux model where it may not be the case that the person has a certain finite diagnosis of end of life. There is a lot more to the two different models. There is a spectrum and other jurisdictions may fall somewhere in between those models. It is very important to get that language right.

I will not jump into the minds of any High Court judges and speculate. My colleagues from our legal department may choose to elaborate on their decision but I am afraid I will not comment on that.

Regarding Deputy Lahart's question about pressure and abuse potentially going both ways, IHREC sees it in terms of the ability of people to make their own decisions. This then speaks to the self-determination and autonomy question raised by Deputy Costello.

Unfortunately, because of the ableist society we live in, people with disabilities do not always have that same level of self-determination, autonomy and decision-making capacity. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which was commenced this year, goes a long way to addressing that. Overall, we believe the Act falls short of the full UNCRPD human rights model, but we do not have as many concerns in the specific area of decision-making. It has to be thought of in the context where, if we provide for people to make decisions, that will negate pressure coming from either direction to choose or not to choose any given option. We urge that, as legislators, the committee considers this in the round. If it is thought about as a suite of options and choices that may be available to people in any given situation, there could be the potential for legislation to give them the option for assisted dying. There has to be good palliative care available as an option too. There also have to be good social and health supports to allow people to live. That is how we would try to frame it. This is one of a series of options that legislators have to consider.