Reverend Dr. Rory Corbett:

The committee has received a statement from the archbishop of Dublin, and covering that is a statement of the position of our church and society commission, which I am representing. By way of background, I was a hospital consultant for more than 30 years and have been ordained in the Church of Ireland for almost 20 years. In this statement, we start from the position that assisted dying still remains a euphemism for a process that is either suicide or of killing by a third party. In our opinion, we consider assisted dying under two headings - the pastoral and ethical basis of the principle, and the ethical issues arising from the process of any procedure that might be considered.

In our written submission, we base the ethical judgment on scripture, which is consistent with arguments from non-faith groups as well as other faiths, and is based on the core principles of affirming life, caring for the vulnerable, caring in cohesive society and autonomy. In terms of affirming life, this acknowledges both the right to life and subsequent legal protection of life and the foundations not only of human rights law, but also much of the criminal code. Beyond this legal underpinning is an acceptance that each life has purchase, purpose, value and meaning. It is part of the Christian tradition to assert that every person's life is of intrinsic value, although we can also get there from a secular position in that our healthcare is predicated on the intrinsic value of somebody, as shown, for instance, in the attempt to resuscitate a person who has collapsed or the time, money and energy we expend on the prevention of suicide programmes, premature baby care or those living with dementia. At the same time, quality of life can be misused to suggest that a person's life can be decided by others, an assessment of what a person can do and what they can contribute to society, but not what they are.

On caring for the vulnerable, all I would say is that a civilised society should do this, but experience does not support it. We see that in child abuse, domestic abuse and elder abuse and the effect of the Covid crisis on that. We should be a caring and cohesive society. Relationship is at the heart of it, and for a Christian, the relationship with God is an essential part of their life. We cannot act in total isolation. As John Wyatt, the ethicist, has put it, however compassionate our motives may be, when we assist in the killing of another human being we damage our own humanity. We must continue to build on that cohesive and compassionate society.

With regard to autonomy, individuals are made in the image of God and we must treat every person with respect and dignity. When it comes to the value of every human life, individual free choice may have to take second place to achieve it.

We must ask why we are having this consultation at this time. The usual argument is that of care and compassion for those with life-limiting and terminal conditions to deal with the themes of intractable pain, loss of control of bodily function and loss of meaningful activity, and that if you argue against it, you are lacking in care and compassion. Others have already alluded to the fact that there are alternatives to assisted dying, particularly through palliative care, and are agreed that this is not the way to deal with the situation. What this consultation is indirectly highlighting is the inadequacy of hospice, palliative and end-of-life care available to the population at large. A major BMA review some years ago, talking with GPs and hospital doctors, nurses, patients and their families, showed how poor the system was for communication, and how patients who were unknown to out-of-hours doctors and palliative nurses were unable to get medical advice or drugs out of hours. The international experience has been alluded to by others, which has shown problems in management and oversight.The issue of the slippery slope has very much reared its head with events in Europe, where jurisdictions have moved from just providing the procedure in cases of terminal illness and for those close to death to extending it to cases where there is no medical illness and no desire to live longer, even for minors. Surely, the ultimate attribute of a civilised society is to care for everyone equally. Is Ireland prepared to open this ultimate Pandora's box? If so, what follows?

Finally, what does not appear to have been considered so far in the doctor consultations is the ethics of who is to carry out the assessments and procedure. It is suggested that it will be carried out by two separate doctors. One can speak to the medical situation and the fact that it meets the regulations. What about the second, who knows nothing about the background deception? Why not choose a priest, who may have had much more contact in the later stages and who may know the situation, which may involve coercion? On this point, I would like to refer to the words of the president of the UK Supreme Court, who said:

The vulnerability to pressure of the old or terminally ill is a more formidable problem. The problem is not that people may decide to kill themselves who are not fully competent mentally. I am prepared to accept that mental competence is capable of objective assessment by health professionals. The real difficulty is that even the mentally competent may have reasons for deciding to kill themselves which reflect either overt pressure on them by others or their own assumptions about what others may think ...

Why not have a societal team set up to make these assessments? Why not a judicial review? Why the automatic assumption that the procedure should and will be carried out by a doctor? It has been suggested by some in other places that there should be others with expertise to do it and that doctors should be left out of it. It is suggested that where it is being chosen for a non-medical reason, it is a societal duty and not a medical duty. As a final question, I ask each member the following: if you were to put this into law, would each of you be prepared to carry out the procedure that at the moment you propose to ask doctors to carry out?