Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all support different causes under different headings. That is my point. We should not have to answer other people's personal tests on these issues.

I listened to Mr. Copson. He spoke of the right to follow one's own conscience as long as it does not harm others. When he says the case is inarguable for legal change, I wonder are there any humanists who would oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide on the grounds that it might harm others. I am thinking of the people who feel a burden as a result of the change in the law because certain categories of people may now have their lives ended in the eyes of the state. Professor Binchy mentioned that more than half of people in Oregon, which is oft touted as a place we should imitate, include that they are a burden on their family, friends and caregivers as a reason. I find that a very significant piece of evidence. The reality is that euthanasia has become a runaway train in places like the Netherlands and Belgium and it is 5%, 6% and even 7% in some parts of Canada. The reality is that while some people may have access to palliative care the ability to have one's own life ended and the change that brings about socially, as pointed out by Professor Theo Boer from the Netherlands who was previously a supporter of the Dutch law. Is Mr. Copson reckoning with the unseen pain of others as a result of a change in the law? Is that not what we are dealing with here? Are there members of the humanists who would oppose euthanasia on the grounds of the harm it might cause others down the line?

The next question is for Professor Binchy about an issue that has arisen. He has spoken about suicide.

A core argument among those worried about a change in the law is that it will become harder to fight suicide. Is suicide a right? It is not criminalised in our country now. Does that mean it is some kind of right? Would changing the law around euthanasia and assisted suicide with regard to one category of people make it harder to see suicide as something that is always a tragedy and always to be discouraged?

I have a question for Mr. Riley. He talked about unshackling dying people from paternalism but is what he is proposing not paternalism in that doctors will decide whether a person is sufficiently ill and mentally competent to fall into this category? How long can such a category stand once people start pointing to it as a form of discrimination?