Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both of our witnesses for the dialogue and for their opening statements. They have given the committee a lot of food for thought. It is obviously a very complex situation and there is so much to think about in so many different ways. I have a few questions that I will put together before seeking a response. I was struck by what Dr. Campbell said regarding denying access to assistance in dying because of a societal failure to make high-quality palliative care more accessible being unethical because it condemns some people to a worse death on their own terms. Obviously it is clear, and it goes back to a point made by my colleague, Deputy Troy, that we need to have the highest standard of palliative care. In thinking then about some people having a worse death, how we live is very important but I believe that how we die is very important as well.

Switzerland has come up a few times in the debate. Active euthanasia is illegal in Switzerland but assisted suicide, or supplying the means, is not. We are all relatively familiar with Dignitas, which helps people to die with dignity. We all know of cases where people outside of Switzerland went for this type of intervention. What does Dr. Campbell think of a company such as Dignitas? Does she think that is a type of model? I do not know much how Dignitas looks at informed consent and the other issues the committee needs to examine in respect of capacity and so on. I would like to hear Dr. Campbell's view on that.

Mr. Keyes spent quite a bit of time talking about the difference between a positive act and omission. Do we need more legislation to bring about a consistent approach between the two? Will he comment on intent? How do we define that intent from the doctor's point of view? Does the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act help in defining those?

I have one question for both witnesses. We have spoken about the adequate information capacity and the voluntary aspect. On the adequate information that people need to be supplied with to consider them informed, if, for example, a particular medical diagnosis was a criterion for assisted dying to be requested but there was a possibility of a misdiagnosis, how would we deal with that?

The area around mental health greatly concerns me. In most cases, we see there has to be a terminal diagnosis, generally within six months. How do we deal with ongoing mental health situations which are not terminal in that somebody will not die from that particular diagnosis? I would like the witnesses to address those concerns.