Irish Examiner view: Law on assisted dying would have to come with safeguards
Picture: The With Sympathy Who Bill And For Those Stock Legal To An Ought Dying Ounce Assisted Of For But With Passion The Anyone Dying — Medical Of Cameron/pa Dignity Advocates Alike Support Would Even Heed Lynne Have Experts Cautions
An Oireachtas committee is to be established early in the new year to consider in detail the issue of assisted dying, a topic that provokes passionate debate on both sides of the argument. The public face for what is characterised as a right to die with dignity is Vicky Phelan, an extraordinary woman and a courageous cervical cancer campaigner who supports the Dying with Dignity Bill, introduced by Eugene “Gino” Kenny, a People Before Profit/Solidarity TD.
It is a little over a year since Vicky called on the Government and all TDs to allow her to “die with dignity” by supporting the bill to allow terminally ill people to end their own lives.
During a Dáil debate, Labour Party leader Alan Kelly read an appeal from Vicky in which she called on TDs to put aside any personal feelings on the issue.
“I am not choosing between living and dying,” Mr Kelly told the Dáil on her behalf.
Anyone with an ounce of compassion would have sympathy for her predicament but it is unrealistic to ask anyone — TD or otherwise — to put aside their personal feelings on such an important topic. Assisted dying is as personal as it gets.
The Dying with Dignity Bill faces significant resistance from members of the medical profession, including the Irish Palliative Medicine Consultants Association.
The Royal College of Physicians of Ireland’s position paper states “the potential harms of assisted suicide outweigh the arguments in favour of legislation for assisted suicide”.
On the other hand, those in favour of a more permissive regime than the bill would permit argue that to be forced to live a life that one deems intolerable is a violation of an individual’s freedom to live — and to die as he or she wants.
The title of the bill suggests its limited intent. In contrast to euthanasia and assisted suicide, assisted dying would apply to terminally ill people only. The problem with that is that in other countries where a limited form of assisted dying was introduced, it wasn’t long before it also applied to those who wished to end their lives but were not terminally ill.
This is the so-called “slippery slope” — the idea that a measure introduced to provide relief to late-stage cancer patients will expand to include those who might otherwise live for many years. In the Netherlands, for example, the law has expanded to allow for euthanasia of a person with dementia.
This issue was addressed by the High Court in the Marie Fleming case in 2013. The three judges remarked: “Even with the most rigorous systems of legislative checks and safeguards, it would be impossible to ensure that the aged, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted, the rejected, the lonely, the impulsive, the financially compromised, and emotionally vulnerable would not avail of this option to avoid a sense of being a burden to their family and society.”
That is why we must ensure that if such a bill becomes law, its effects are constrained by enshrining those limitations in the Constitution by way of referendum.