Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is another amendment that I am happy to support.

I listened to the Minister's response and there is a certain logic in it because the last thing one would want to see is some kind of a conflict between the contents of an advance healthcare directive and the contents of an enduring power-of-attorney arrangement.

One of the concerns would be that the EPA is something that is very well established. Many EPAs are not in the end required to be activated but if, as is the case at the moment, very few people execute an advance healthcare directive and many more people execute enduring power-of-attorney arrangements, would it not be better to have a provision in law that, where there is a conflict, the advance healthcare directive would prevail? If what we are trying to do here is to facilitate the activation and actions in accordance with people's wishes expressed in advance, and if one has an existing arrangement where all sorts of other decisions are entrusted to a person or persons who may in the fullness of time execute, carry through or activate an enduring power of attorney, should it not be the case that people are facilitated rather than required to go down a certain track? If a person has to execute an advance healthcare directive as well as a will and the enduring power of attorney, is it possible that people will opt not to do that because of the time, trouble and expense that could entail? I ask that question sincerely.

As with a previous amendment, these ideas have not come out of the sky. The joint committee recommended that health and medical treatment decisions be retained in the scope of an EPA. I wonder if there is a way to have a "both-and" provision rather than an "either-or" one, particularly given that we could provide for the advance healthcare directive taking priority in the event of any possible conflict of direction.