John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Hickey has said that a number of times and it is very refreshing that he can bring the intellectual approach. I take the objectivity of his presentation.

The reason I ask about the conservative and liberal reference is that I would not like to see those who might have issues with this as being less than progressive and that those who want to see it introduced as being progressive. I speak for myself in saying I am trying to bring a lot of objectivity and neutrality to this and, as I said at the opening session last week, inquisitiveness and curiosity.

Dr. Casey might forgive me as I do not have any questions for him. Dr. Mulligan has done us a great service today, as has everyone, but the four questions she raised are really at the heart of what we have to get to. I take a number of points that she has made. She quoted the Supreme Court in the Marie Fleming case: "If this Court could be satisfied that it would be possible to tailor-make a solution which would address the needs of Ms. Fleming alone without any possible implications for [anyone else], there might be a good deal to be said in favour of her case." There is an acknowledgment of that that but Dr. Mulligan is saying that unlike the Legislature, the court did not have the powers to go into that kind of detail but we do. That is one of the distinctions and one reason the Supreme Court did not go further or perhaps why it did not make a more positive judgment.

One thing I feel very strongly about, and which Dr. Mulligan has answered in her questions, is that the judgment presents the Legislature with the following questions: "1. Should certain people be entitled to assistance in ending their own lives? 2. If so, who are those people and what are the key characteristics that mean they are entitled to seek assistance in dying?" That is very important for me because you are not talking about the key medical conditions. That is a really vital contribution which Dr. Mulligan makes. We have been talking about that off line.

As I said last week, when people discuss this, they think of conditions that would make them not want to continue. The witness's contribution of the set of key characteristics is important. If there were four of you here the score might be 2-2. This is interesting for us. If there were ten of you here it could be 6-4 or 5-5 or 4-6. Great intellectual rigour could be brought to this by different legal views. We still have to take the decision. I am particularly taken by what Dr. Hickey said about the resounding judgment of the Supreme Court in the case.

Suppose then, just for argument's sake, that we do not have the competency to deal with this. How is that resolved in an Irish context?