Despite the bustling atmosphere surrounding the previous week’s political affairs, a crucial report from the Oireachtas regarding an important matter received less recognition than it warranted. The discussion around the potential legislation permitting assisted dying under certain conditions sparks profound dialogue around ethical, medical and social issues that demand thoughtful consideration.
Admirably, the Joint Committee on Assisted Dying has enriched this conversation with their valuable input. The committee was brought together following guidance from the Justice Committee, which had examined a draft legislation on the matter composed by People Before Profit TD Gino Kenny. The committee consulted various medical and legal experts, as well as heard accounts from individuals who have seen their loved ones endure a prolonged and painful demise.
The concluding report from the committee includes 38 distinct recommendations that, if fully implemented, can instigate a revolutionary transformation in Irish law and introduce the privilege of assisted dying under certain defined circumstances. These suggestions intend to address certain apprehensions voiced by expert witnesses, as well as encompass the experiences of the rather small count of countries that have already enacted legislation in this area.
The proposition suggests introducing legislation that would allow individuals with only half a year left to their lives to avail of assisted dying. For those suffering from a neurodegenerative condition, this period could be extended to a year. In order to be eligible for this service, an individual must be diagnosed with an incurable, irreversible, advanced and progressive disease, illness or medical condition that will inevitably lead to death.
Among the 14-member committee, three members, including the chairperson, Michael Healy Rae, dissented from the final report, sparking some critique. Regardless of the intricacies of protocol, it is not concerning that the decision wasn’t a consensus. Recent referendums have shown how such consensus can often veil the actual spectrum of public opinion on a given issue.
More worrying, however, was the hounding of a witness before the committee. It is hoped that these types of personal attacks will be omitted from future debates on matters where high-level professionals, including experienced medical experts, have genuine diverging viewpoints.
The government’s response to the suggestions still remains uncertain. Considering there’s less than a year left in their term, the likelihood of them eagerly drafting and passing any measures dealing with such a delicate issue seems improbable. Therefore, the burden might fall on political parties to communicate their stances on the subject ahead of the national election, potentially pledging to introduce legislation in their prospective government agendas.