Dr. Annie McKeown O'Donovan:

The first thing the Deputy referenced was my definition of autonomy, namely, people being able to choose what to do, and when and how to do it. He said that people already die by suicide. This is characterised as distinct from assisted dying.

If we look at testimony from say, Marie Fleming or Debbie Purdy, or other people who have campaigned for the choice to die with assistance, we will see that they characterised their want as something different from suicidal ideation, so that is definitely something that needs more attention.

The Deputy asked about the distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. As a philosopher I am not completely equipped to talk about the distinction between them with respect to our Constitution, but from a philosophical perspective, if we decriminalise something we do not automatically have a supportive right to do that the way we do when something is legalised. When something is legalised we can have support, safeguards and be very clear on what it is we have a right to do, but that is not present when something is decriminalised.

There was mention also of imminent death as a barrier to the slippery slope leading to the argument that people are being discriminated against by being excluded by the imminence criteria. That is a very real possibility, but what needs to be reiterated then is the question of life; when death is imminent, life is going to be over. The social justice issue comes in with those who are potentially going to be discriminated against because they fall outside that remit. We need to take better care of people who feel like assisted dying is the answer. The example of abject loneliness was used. I am not 100% clear on the link there. That ties into the question Senator Ruane posed to Dr. Yuill about whether that is the singular issue or one of the spectrum of problems someone is experiencing.