Dr. Matthew Dor?:

Regarding the definition of an incorrect death, I am not au faitwith the Irish history of capital punishment, but I am more familiar with that of the UK so I will refer to it.

It was abolished under a large premise of a few cases, those of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis who were subsequently killed and then found to be innocent. They were hung in the fifties and sixties and subsequently found to be innocent. That was with a full judicial court inquiry, months of deliberation, access to the finances and every other aspect of that person, and they came with an incorrect decision. We have had the case of Harry Gleeson here. The issue then becomes that, with this framework of assisted dying, there are going to be incorrect deaths. There is no denying that. That is what I mean by that. I think the committee heard about someone in Canada who was misdiagnosed with COPD and subsequently had medical assistance in dying, MAID. That is an incorrect death because incorrect diagnosis led to an early death. A prognosis which is wildly out is surely an incorrect death. These are incorrect deaths. That is my definition of incorrect death.

What is the balance? That is my real point. As legislators, members are not only advocates for individual autonomy; they are also advocates for societal safety. They are balancing those two aspects of law. While individual choice is a thing, it is up to a limit. Treatment can be withdrawn, and we allow things to happen in that regard, but we do not actively intervene because it affects the wider population. That is the position of the APM.