Amid the excitement of last week’s political events, a significant Oireachtas report on an important subject received rather less attention than it merited. The debate over whether to legislate to allow assisted dying in certain circumstances raises profound ethical, medical and social questions which deserve sober reflection.
The Joint Committee on Assisted Dying deserves credit, therefore, for the valuable contribution it has made to that debate. The committee was convened following a recommendation from the Justice Committee, which had reviewed legislation on the issue drafted by People Before Profit TD Gino Kenny. It heard submissions from a wide range of medical and legal experts, as well as testimony from those whose loved ones had suffered the indignity of a painful and prolonged death.
The committee’s final report includes 38 specific recommendations which, if adopted in total, would see a radical change to Irish law and the introduction of a right to assisted dying in certain specified circumstances. They are designed to take account of some of the concerns expressed by expert witnesses, as well as the experiences of the relatively small number of countries which have already legislated in this area.
It is proposed that legislation should be introduced to allow people with just six months to live to avail of assisted dying. For those with a neurodegenerative condition, this could be extended to 12 months. To be able to access the service, a person would have to have been diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition which is incurable and irreversible, advanced, progressive and will cause death.
Three members of the 14-person committee dissented from the final report, including the chair, Michael Healy Rae, whose decision gave rise to some criticism. Whatever the niceties of protocol, it should not be a cause for concern that the decision was not unanimous. The recent referendums highlighted how such unanimity can serve to obscure the true range of public opinion on an issue.
Of more concern was the barracking of one witness who appeared before the committee. It is to be hoped that such personalised attacks will be avoided during future debates on a question on which many, including experienced medical professionals, sincerely differ.
It remains to be seen what action, if any, the Government takes on foot of the recommendations. With less than a year left to run, it seems unlikely that it will be enthusiastic about the prospect of drafting and passing legislation on such a sensitive question. It may therefore be left to the political parties to make their positions clear on the matter in advance of the general election, with the possibility of including a commitment to legislate in a future programme for government.