Dr. Simon Mills:

I believe Professor Huxtable was just finishing an answer when Deputy Troy spoke across him. I believe he was going to say something that I was going to say, which is that this is a parliamentary democracy and none of our laws are preserved in amber, although some of them may perhaps be the same as they are now in 100 years. It is no sort of answer for a parliamentary democracy to say that it cannot introduce a law because the law might change in the future. With the greatest respect to this committee, that would be an absolute abdication of responsibility on the part of the Oireachtas.

I will go back to something that may answer Senator Seery Kearney's question as well as Deputy Troy's. I refer to this fear of incrementalism. First of all, is it a justified fear? On one analysis, it may be but, bearing in mind that laws change and have always changed, is this incrementalism something to be feared or something to be weighed in the balance among all the other things that must be considered whenever the Oireachtas legislates? If it does nothing, the next Fleming case could come along in six months or a year with a different set of facts and different evidence and the Supreme Court may make a decision that is way more far-reaching than something the Oireachtas might legislate for. One of the things members must be alive to is that, if what they are concerned about is the unknown, they should legislate. Why not legislate for what the Oireachtas determines are the appropriate limits? There is an important aspect of the Fleming case. The aspect that led to the case being lost is also the aspect that will lead to members being able to have some confidence that what they decide to legislate for will be respected by the Supreme Court. For exactly the same reason the Supreme Court said that this is an area of complex area of social policy and must be a matter for the Oireachtas, if the Oireachtas decides to legislate a certain way, the court will show great deference to what the Oireachtas has decided to exclude.

I will echo one thing that Professor Huxtable said. In fact, it is what I was originally going to start with but I did not want to piggyback on him so shamelessly. The idea that we would introduce legislation about assisted dying without properly funding palliative care, healthcare services, social services and educational services is rather shameful. There is an idea that assisted dying exists as a right on its own. It exists along with the right of every citizen in this country to live a dignified life right up until the moment of their dignified death. That is something that must be borne in mind in approaching this whole area which, as the Supreme Court said, is an area of complex social policy.