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

Not if the safeguards are built in. It would then hold in the previous conversation. If a person can give consent for the withholding of treatment, in that situation the doctor still knows that the person will die. He or she may still believe, "Oh God, that's not in the best interest of this person." Therefore, the two things are the same for me. The consent remains the same in both situations. The outcome also remains the same in both situations. Whether we give or do not give, the ultimate end is death. Sometimes if we hold beliefs, we really struggle with the idea that we can actively give someone something that will make them die today instead of in three weeks. Ultimately, the same thing is happening in all situations. The same applies with palliative care.

I have some questions for Professor Madden on the four principles that are set out, malfeasance and the idea of no harm. How is harm weighted? If we were to have a regulated system under which assisted dying was permitted, these four principles also seem to uphold that system in a sense. They are not in opposition to also having a regulated system on assisted dying.

Regarding doing no harm, I am sure some people would say that the harm is the removal of life. That is the harm: the person's life is gone and the person is dead. Is that principle related to the harm it causes the individual, society or the people around them? Ultimately the harm is removed from the person because the harm they were experiencing was the suffering, pain or whatever it may be at the end of their life. Is harm weighted towards the person who is no longer with us rather than towards the people who are around them who feel harmed by their absence?