Dr. Tom Hickey:

I would have to point out, and Dr. Mulligan would know this more intimately than I, that in the Irish jurisprudence, such as in the Re a Ward of Court case, which I was reading an extract from in the past day or two, in the High Court judgment in Fleming, in the Supreme Court judgment in Fleming and perhaps in another case, the Irish judges have been consistent over the past 25 years in stating that there is a distinction between letting somebody die and taking an active step to bring a life to an end. There is a morally important distinction and a legally or constitutionally recognised distinction between those two things. I would say that is there consistently in Irish jurisprudence. In that sense, it is not a legal fiction. I would also say that, particularly for this Supreme Court led by Chief Justice O'Donnell, and the late Chief Justice Frank Clarke before him, what we are seeing - we saw it in the Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters case, which was about something else entirely, as we know - is that in the jurisprudence, these judges are making the point more and more that they are Irish judges and that their job is to interpret the Irish Constitution and the text and structure thereof rather than the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the European Convention on Human Rights or the US Bill of Rights.

That is a kind of by-the-way point. I do not think it is massively relevant here, but there is a conscientious effort now to say that. Again, it has to do with that notion of legitimacy, function and role. They are saying: "We are judges in this setting. This is our job. We are not going to bring our moral views to bear on the world." There is a discipline in that regard. Chief Justice O'Donnell is particularly emphatic on and interested in this point. It is certainly relevant to look at Canadian jurisprudence, which is more progressive, or Swiss, US, State of Oregon jurisprudence or whatever, but, fundamentally, this is the Irish jurisdiction.