Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

This issue was discussed at some length in the Dáil. There are two different perspectives on it. While I understand, as a result of that discussion, the rationale for the amendment, the provisions the amendment seeks to delete are important, in my view, from the perspective of legal clarity. The 2015 Act was reviewed in detail in the process of preparing the amendment Bill. Legal experts reviewed these provisions on behalf of the HSE and it was found there is a risk to a relevant person if two decision supporters have equal rights in terms of treatment decisions at a moment of crisis. If an attorney were to agree to a treatment decision while a designated healthcare representative made the opposite decision, whose view would prevail? It is possible this would lead to legal cases in situations where the decision supporters are in conflict as to the decision.

In terms of legal clarity, the provisions in question make clear to medical professionals and clinicians that in the context of advance planning, a designated healthcare representative and the text of an advance healthcare directive are the definitive support and statement concerning a person's treatment decisions. This clarity is necessary for the provision of healthcare in line with the person's will and preference, especially where swift decisions may need to be made. In addition, the provisions have regard to the specification in Part 8 of the Act of a series of safeguards and protections as to how a person's treatment preferences are to be complied with, including in certain difficult ethical or medical scenarios. These provisions are absent from the sections on enduring powers of attorney. It is preferable to provide clarity that an advance healthcare directive is the appropriate instrument for advance planning in a healthcare context. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.