Professor William Binchy:

I will just pick up on what Mr. Copson just said, which is that pain has no value at the end of life. The argument absolutely is not that life should continue inevitably and indefinitely regardless of pain. That is absolutely not my position. My position is that, in circumstances where pain is extreme and cannot be dealt with by medical methods, it is legitimate, on the basis of the principle of double effect, to engage in pain relief. If that results in the death of the individual concerned, the intention was not to kill the person but to engage in pain relief. That is the nature of palliative care. However, the committee's function is that of a legislature and it is fair to say that legislators have to ask themselves, if we confront that case and find it difficult to consider, what will happen if we say yes in the case of extreme pain at the end of life. I believe they will have got this answer from my two fellow speakers here today, which is that it rolls out. We are in a new room, have closed the door behind us and are now in a debate as to how far we should go. We deprecate Canada and say that we will engage in best practice in our country but we know that what we have done in those circumstances is to accept a fundamentally new understanding of the nature of human life and dignity. We have said that certain people would be better off dead than alive.