Mr. Andrew Copson:

Clearly, autonomy has limits - that is absolutely right. No person is an island. We are all embedded in human relationships in our personal relationships, families and in society. Our choices have consequences for other people, as does what happens to us. That is obviously true. No one should be tempted to mistake the argument for autonomy as an argument for pure, unfettered and rampant individualism. The fact that none of us are totally free individuals, no man is an island and we are all connected to others cuts both ways in this argument. As we already heard, the suffering we experience at the end of life and that thousands of people are experiencing at the end of life also has effects on those who love us. The unnecessary suffering we experience not only harms us, but it harms our family, friends and the medical practitioners around us - all of us. That cuts both ways. Personally, the argument for autonomy is an important part of the case for compassionate laws on assisted dying but it is not the most important.

I would prefer to prioritise values like care, compassion and dignity. This world is full of suffering and it always will be; the only choice each of us can make - legislators have a particularly powerful position in this context - is whether we will mitigate that suffering, how to mitigate that suffering and what actions we can take to do so. The case is inarguable that to take action to give legal recognition for assisted dying in all of the circumstances I mentioned is to mitigate suffering. To allow the current situation to continue is to sign up for great and increasing suffering both at the present time and in the long term.

Regarding changing social values and what has been referred to by some as the "slippery slope", my view, as I already outlined, which is also the view of the majority of people in Ireland, according to polls, is that assisted dying should be made legal both for the terminally ill and those who are incurably suffering. Far from being a slippery slope, that is what I am signing up for and advocating right now. Both of those categories of persons should be eligible for assisted dying. To look around the world where laws have been introduced, the law in Oregon, for example, has been unchanged for 25 years. There are also real-life, practical examples that the so-called "slippery slope" is not inevitable. Not only is it not inevitable but it is not very likely. After all, this process members are going through now as parliamentarians demonstrates, presumably, how the law in the future would expand as well. Slippery slopes only exist if people, legislators and medical practitioners are negligent. We can trust our political processes a bit more than that. If assisted dying laws expand, I would trust and have confidence that it is as a result of evidence examined by legislators in sessions like this. That is our duty to all make that is the case.