Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have listened with interest to the debate. I have debates of this nature in the past, as we all have. I have to say I have a deep concern about the legalisation of termination of anybody's life. We have had many discussions on all sides of this principle over the years. It was brought to a head for me when I was asked a long time ago, long before I came into the age bracket I am in now, whether I believed in mercy killing. I do not now and I did not then. What worries me most is the degree to which assisted dying has taken off in countries where it is permitted. I would be very worried about the number of interests, and I would like to know the number of interests, that had an input into the situation that prevails in those countries.

In many discussions, we were told that people initially reject such assisted dying concepts but then eventually come around to them. I recognise there are people who have particular illnesses and situations where families see their loved ones in pain, suffering and agony. There are ways and means now through palliative care, as has been mentioned by several speakers, in which these particular types of traumas for people can be alleviated to a great extent by modern medicine without the termination of the lives of the people concerned.

The nature of this proposal puts an end to any hopes such people might have of new medicines, procedures or help coming on the scene and goes along a line of finality. Several speakers mentioned that palliative care should be discussed separately. It should, but palliative care is the first issue that must be taken into account to ensure everything possible is done to make life as comfortable as possible for people who have terminal illnesses and are distressed in the course of them, and especially where their families are distressed because they have to watch while the person's life ebbs away.

There is obviously an air of finality about it. If something were to happen that might have proven to have been of benefit to sufferers at a later stage, perhaps six months, one year, two years or ten years later, whatever it might be, there is no recourse to going back; it is irreversible. That is a worrying factor. What is also worrying, and Members referred to these issues already, is that people are a little uneasy about this proposal, even those in favour of it. I know everything is being done to reassure people it is absolutely painless and so on and so forth. It is the principle one must worry about, the principle of helping someone to die when what we need to emphasise is helping someone to live and doing everything possible in the course of our public lives to try to ensure people have the greatest chance possible of living and availing of palliative care and the modern medicines and procedures that are becoming available. Let us remember, there are many procedures to which the public now has access in our hospitals. I know we hear complaints from time to time that we do not have access in the way we should - I am not so sure about that aspect - but there are procedures available to the public now that were not there some years ago.

Let us consider the situation where a person has availed of assisted dying or has been convinced that assisted dying is the answer to their problem. It is too late then. One cannot go back; it is all over. I am not so sure that people might not think maybe they were rash in that, maybe they were too quick to come to a decision, and maybe they took the easy way out. I again go back to the countries wherein legislation of this kind has been introduced, albeit on a limited basis. The numbers in some countries, however, would not indicate to me any limit in respect of the basis on which it is being availed of. I cannot understand how it took off so quickly and what other reasons and considerations were taken into account. As a Member of this House, of the health committee and, previously, of a major health board, I have to put the emphasis on preserving life, insofar as we can, and on using modern medicines, palliative care and care in general to assist the person who has terminal illness that is painful. That is not to say we do not understand - we do understand - and one can always see it in the relatives faced with that particular problem and who may be in a quandary as to whether they should proceed in one way or another.

I have to come down every time on the side of recognising that all is not lost just yet and everything is possible in the modern age. It may be a conclusion at a particular time to ease the suffering of patient, but not in the event of an alternative arising, which can and will arise in many cases, and will happen in time, whether it be long or short, to ensure the person suffering from the illness has a possibility of seeing out their life with reasonable ease to a conclusion that does not carry in it a possibility of somebody deciding to ease their pain where the methodology is also terminal. I am opposed to that. I have had this discussion with the proposer of the motion and I just cannot bring myself to support it in any way, shape or form.

See this speech in context