Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Chair and I thank the three witnesses for attending today. There has been a very good discussion so far. In particular, I was very interested in what Dr. Mulligan said about people being pressured and about the dangers of a cultural shift. It is important to consider subjective experiences. I have met people in a daycare centre who said something similar to what Dr. Mulligan said. Being warm with a roof over their head is a good day for some people and, subjectively, that might not be worth much to others.

I was interested to hear about the concerns relating to the advanced directives and working outside of terminal illnesses as well. I thought that was interesting because in our own discussions, in preparing the work programme, that certainly came into it. There has been a bit of a debate going on about language. I think we have to be very careful about language. As part of the pre-meeting today we obtained a document from Samaritans Ireland. This outlines what words to use when talking about suicide in general. It advises using phrases like "a suicide", "taking your own life", "ending your own life", but advises against phrases such as "a suicide victim", "a cry for help" or an "unsuccessful" or "successful suicide attempt", for example.

That is the kind of tricky pathway we are going to have to negotiate. I am not too concerned about whether somebody called it a "killing" or a "suicide". The phrase "assisted suicide" was used by some of the contributors. When politics and the criminal law intersect, "killing" is quite a neutral term, whereas "murder" is possibly a legal concept, but if one were to say to someone whose family member had been killed that it was manslaughter, the family member would probably take offence at the use of that term. As such, I would not get too upset about someone using that type of language. It is also interesting that Dr. Hickey mentioned the conservative versus liberal aspect. One could be quite a progressive advocate for disability rights and very strident in that and possibly - though maybe not based on the end of Dr. Hickey's contribution - be described as a conservative.

I want to ask about the obiter in the Fleming case. Would it be a stronger argument that the Supreme Court was suggesting we should legislate? I am wondering whether it was more of a suggestion than a directive or demand. Would it have been a stronger argument if the Supreme Court had not used a double negative in posing the question and simply said it is open to the Oireachtas to legislate here if the appropriate safeguards could be introduced?