Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I have two issues to raise.

First, the Fleming case was contested on the basis that a provision was made by the Legislature that stated suicide was no longer a criminal offence but there was a clarification within that that to assist, aid, abet, etc., suicide was a criminal offence. There was that holding position and it was an express provision within the legislation. What was being contested in the Supreme Court case was whether that was discriminatory through the context of a person arriving in a place of disability and unable to exercise his or her own preference for suicide and complete a suicide him or herself.

I have exactly the same regard for Ms Justice Denham that Dr. Hickey does. When I hear her comments, I hear her through that lens where she was saying there was an express provision but it does not mean it cannot be changed. I came today with the fear that the wording of the Constitution prohibited us from being able to legislate. I see the wording in the Constitution does not do that without having an express provision, so I moved to that place. Senator Mullen knows well that was my position last Friday because we were on a radio debate together.

I have moved to a place where yes, we can, but now the key moment is in respect of the safeguards. Who arrives at and who exercises this right? How is it exercised? What safeguards can we put in for the vulnerable who would feel they were a burden to their family? It is not even direct influence; it is the indirect or some sort of societal shift.

We had the case of Re a Ward of Court and the hunger strike case, so you can refuse treatment and sustenance. That is carried through even when you are unconscious, or is that confined to the specifics of that case? We now have assisted decision-making. Theoretically, in the context of a specific diagnosis that has a particular trajectory, do we arrive at a place where that sequence of events could happen now, before ever we legislate, and pain relief administered in the refusal of sustenance and treatment that will, by default, accelerate dying? I accept the double effect and that it is not an intentional act. At this time, could those sequence of events be set up and exercised by an individual in the context of assisted decision-making because you can have an advance directive?