Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a concern in relation to amendment No. 65. I ask the Minister of State to listen to what I have to say and perhaps consider revising it and coming back to it on Report Stage. Amendment No. 65 provides that a co-decision maker may refuse to acquiesce with an appointer's decision where it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will result in harm to the appointer or to another person. I believe this is too restrictive on the autonomy of the appointer. We all enjoy the dignity of risk to take decisions that can carry a risk of harm to ourselves. For example, if the appointer wishes to consent to a new surgery which she believes will benefit her condition but the surgery has a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, would we really want a co-decision maker to be able to prevent her from taking that decision? I believe this amendment should be revised to ensure that the harm, in addition to being reasonably foreseeable, should be imminent and of a grave nature.That would bring the Bill closer to its goal of respecting the will and preferences of the person concerned. I ask the Minister of State to take another look at the amendment because I have a concern about offering choice. I argue all the time for what is best in the interests of the child. I realise that when one is no longer a child, we are all allowed to make decisions as adults that may not necessarily be in our best interests. That is what we want to do and we should be allowed to do so. This amendment is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. We should, therefore, consider inserting the words "imminent and of a grave nature". Who will have the power to make a decision about undergoing new surgery?