Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question for Dr. Huxtable and one for Dr. Mills. Dr Huxtable spoke about the ethical position on dying and some of the arguments that may be put forward. He emphasised the importance of consistency in relation to legal systems which already permit practices that rest on identical or similar justifications. I would like him to elaborate on that.

My question for Dr. Mills, and correct me if I have misunderstood, relates to advanced healthcare directives. Comments were made that we do not know who we will be or what type of person we will be at a future point in time. We could have a case of something being in an advanced healthcare directive, and then maybe capacity is impacted and somebody asserts that they want to live. Obviously, the advanced healthcare directive would not be held up at that point, but instead what is being said in the particular moment. Dr. Mills himself used the example of not waking somebody up on the operating table who had a do not resuscitate order. To link the two questions, if Dr.Huxtable is right in saying that consistency matters in relation to euthanasia, then in what other areas does consistency matter? If we do not know who we will be at a point in time, how can we take any health or advanced healthcare directive about we want to be treated, be it surgery or anything else? Whatever the directive may be, are we saying that advanced healthcare directives stand up everywhere else? For example, in mental health treatment, if a person says they do not want a particular type of treatment, are we not recognising that the person may not be the same person they were when they made the directive? Are we only saying that holds true if it is in relation to the right to die or the right to live? I feel that there need to be consistency in how we actually think and talk about these things.