John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A colleague has said that a narrow form of assisted dying might be pursued for a principled or strategic reason. I accept the "principled" part of that but the "strategic reason" implies that someone might choose a narrow form of assisted dying in order to open the gates to a more liberal, progressive - that may not be an accurate term - or broad access programme. All I can do is to speak for myself. I oscillate between the pros and cons of this issue. This has been an informative exercise for me. The witnesses from whom the committee has heard have been extraordinary in the testimony and insight they have given us. I am not coming to this debate in a strategic way.

I am minded today, and have been minded in the past while, to think that a very narrow legislative approach can be considered without intending ever to open any floodgates or to provide a slippery slope. I do not accept the logic. If it is in the legislators' minds to restrict it, and I am not saying it is but am speaking only for myself, I do not see that the automatic conclusion is that it will become more widespread or more liberal. Professor Binchy is saying the difficulty is that if a change is made, compelling arguments are likely to be made for extensions to other cases. There is also a possibility that they are unlikely to be made. There is also the possibility that they are likely to be resisted. I wish the professor would imbue legislators with the power and intelligence to know the difference. That is the first point I want to make.

There has been reference to the connection between different societies' outlook on this issue and religious values. I am not entirely comfortable with that. I am a person with religious values who is quite open to the consideration of this issue and to teasing it inside out. There are many other people like me.

On the humanist approach, Mr. Copson, in his opening statement, said: "We should value human beings' personal autonomy and defend the right of individuals who have come to rational, settled decisions about their own bodies to be able to carry out their own wishes." Under what circumstances? Are there limits to that? Is Mr. Copson talking about people who are terminally ill? Is that argument restricted completely to people who are terminally ill?