Dr. Conor Casey:

No problem. Just let me go in reverse order. I would characterise the statutory situation around suicide not as a right but as an immunity, in that a person is immune from any prosecution on foot of that. Looking at the Dáil debates, the intention of the Oireachtas to decriminalise suicide was actually to protect life. It was to make it easier to seek treatment without the lingering threat of prosecution. The intent was to make it easier to vindicate and protect life.

I cannot remember a case nor have I heard of a case where someone who prevented another person taking his or her own life was then subject to civil penalties for assault. Under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, which concerns assault, there is a defence on consent to touching that would seem to cover saving a life in such a situation.

My understanding of the Fleming case was that the Supreme Court was just not determining either way in the abstract and in the absence of full argument on this sensitive point. Aside from this obiter comment, I believe the court's main concerns in the Fleming case in the divisional High Court is relevant to any assessment of whether any liberalisation of the categorical ban would be consistent with Article 40.3.2°, including on the points the Senator mentioned such as the High Court's concern around whether safeguards would be difficult or nearly impossible to police adequately. Such aspects would be relevant to an assessment of Article 40.3 compliance.