Rónán Mullen (Independent)

We should have a debate soon on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on bioethics, specifically the issue of advanced care directives. There is much to welcome in the report of the commission. However, as with many such reports, it is important we do not see it as an automatic template that we follow slavishly in legislation, but that we have a full and searching debate on the recommendations made. I am particularly concerned about the need to revisit, in cultural and legal terms, the question of artificial feeding and hydration. It is important that would always be seen as basic ordinary care and not as artificial or extraordinary care. The Law Reform Commission seems to suggest that such artificial nutrition and hydration should be seen as treatment rather than as basic care. It seems to be of the view that the question of the person's likelihood of recovery should be the determining factor in deciding whether to give such care. It is good that the Law Reform Commission has indicated its proposals but we need to have a careful debate on this issue.

In that context, we should reflect on an excellent article by Breda O'Brien in last Saturday's edition of The Irish Times in which she described a situation of a man who was suffering from locked-in syndrome. When people finally managed to communicate with him, which was a tortuous process of asking him to respond to the question of whether he wanted to live, his response was gradually expressed that "I demand to live" and he added an expletive. When we are talking about advanced care directives, it may well be that a person, perhaps an elderly person who is worried about being a burden, will express one kind of wish when he or she is well but who when ill would not want his or her life curtailed. We need to focus clearly on the need to respect that life is always a good thing and even where there is suffering, there is massive human potential for hope and dignity.

In that context, we should also reflect on the so-called clarification of laws on assisted suicide published in England and Wales today. It is important to be careful that we would never undermine the essential point of our culture that life is always a good thing. The act of a person who assists somebody else to die should always be prosecutable. The particular circumstances can be taken into consideration in mitigation when it comes to sentencing, but by issuing clarifications suggesting in what circumstances the Director of Public Prosecutions might bring a prosecution and in what circumstances he or she might not, I would be concerned that it would involve giving a green light to people to make decisions that they should not take.

We are all in dialogue with people on different sides of the debate on the Lisbon treaty who are sincere and well-informed people. One point on which would all agree is that people should be able to vote. I received correspondence on this matter, on which I also seek a debate, from Mr. Richard Pearse, a pilot, who indicated that the issue of the Lisbon treaty is now one of interest for him rather than one of action. He indicated that his job will have him out of the country on 2 October so he will be unable to exercise his vote. He indicated that we have an extremely absentee voting system here.