Dr. Andrea Mulligan:

There are a number of different questions here. Regarding the mental and physical suffering question, the law has always struggled to take mental suffering seriously. Historically, in negligence cases there was no recovery at all for any injury that was not physical injury or injury to property. Very slowly, the law started to recognise what it categorises as recognised psychiatric injuries. However, it is still the case that a person can only recover damages for a psychiatric injury when he or she has a diagnosis. Mental suffering is still not compensable as a matter of law, unless a person also has a physical injury. That is just as a general point.

In the specific area of assisted dying, mental injury, or mental suffering presents specific difficulties. This is not to preempt the committee on what it thinks the answer should be, but I imagine it presents difficulties in terms of treating it because it is putting death on the table for a person. It is more complicated in a situation where there is mental suffering, regardless of what we think of the ultimate question on that.

A person who is suffering from a mental illness or is suffering mentally is often physically able to end their own life, and that is an important distinction. Many of the people who we are talking about are physically unable to end their own life. In Marie Fleming's case, that was the evidence. She actually said that she considered going to Switzerland to have her life ended at a time when she would have been able to go but she was physically unable to. The question of whether a person is able or unable to do so is really important.

That is the contribution I would make. I will hand over to my colleagues on the other questions.