The Editor of Catholic Arena described the report from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Assisted Dying [JCAD] as being “a dud.” In many ways I agree.
The outcome was probably a foregone conclusion from the get-go due to the bias of several committee members. My article below shows Lynn Ruane berating an expert during his testimony.
(Click image to follow the link)
Many people understand the term “dud” to mean “a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless.”
I live beside a Canadian military base so people get very, very worried if they come across any sort of “dud.” After kicking an object in the dirt, a visiting British soldier found this out the hard way. He triggered some military ordnance — an explosive device — which took his life.
The signs below are all around the perimeter of the base.
On a 5 km walking path beside the military base there are 29 of this sign. (& many more saying “No Trespassing.”)
EXPLOSIVE POTENTIAL
Some TD’s in Dáil Éireann might wish to penalize the electorate or show them “who’s the boss” after the failed referendums and resignation of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
Simply: people will die if the JCAD report becomes the basis for legislation. Gino Kenny is already promising a new iteration of his Bill.
SOCIETY SHOULD NOT KILL
Simply, no country should kill it’s citizens — ever!
Similarly, no country should kill the citizens of any other country — unless defending themselves in time of war.
Many AS/VE supporters discount “religious” arguments so below is a summary of the arguments made by Humanists against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia which sent a 6-page submission to the British Parliament, January 2023:
Escalation: the numbers receiving assisted suicide consistently increases.
Expansion: ever more categories become eligible as people who feel they are “suffering unbearably” demand it.
Physical Pain: is not a prime reason why people choose assisted suicide.
Suicidality: We should not provide death on request for suicidal people.
Non-Assisted Suicide Rates: legalising AS/VE has minimal impact on suicide rates (or they go up.)
Capital Punishment: being the most comparable moral question, is barred in most developed countries.
Wretchedness: Putting someone to death because their life or their condition is wretched, is wrong in principle.
Equal value: Society affords equal protection to all.
Parameters: it is impossible to consistently define the physical & mental health criteria by which an individual is eligible to access assisted dying/assisted suicide services.
Capabilities: we cannot define the capabilities necessary for a person to consent to death.
Information: It is impossible to define the advice & guidance needed to provide informed consent for death consistently.
AS/VE based on Autonomy: The autonomy argument for AS/VE is counter-intuitive — why campaign for assistance with something that most every person can accomplish by themselves? (In areas that allow both euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, the vast majority give up their autonomy by opting for a doctor or HCW to administer the poison.)
AS/VE based on Suffering/Compassion: In this circumstance we must accept all claims of suffering as determined subjectively by the sufferer: doctors do not have an objective measure of suffering.
(AS/VE based on suffering leads to the killing of productive members of society as happened to Tine Nys in Belgium: centre person.)
AS/VE based on Utility: So…kill anyone who is not “of value” to society.
Eugenics: early campaigners for euthanasia often were eugenicists. Many supporters of AS/VE are in favour of major population controls due to the “climate crisis,” etc.
Medicalisation of Death: Reducing death to a medical treatment undermines the moral profundity of the act of taking a life.
Coercion: There are coercive implications to legalization and a society can coerce vulnerable people by not providing adequate social supports or health care.
DISCLAIMER:
A review of the JCAD recommendations is not be taken as a validation for Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia.
Though Recommendation 19 says “potential legislation on assisted dying uses clear and unambiguous terms and definitions, to avoid scope for uncertainty.” the clause itself and indeed the whole document, uses the euphemism “assisted dying.”
In most jurisdictions, AD includes Assisted Suicide and/or Voluntary Euthanasia, but JCAD provided no definitions!
Recommendation 4 says “that where a person has been proven guilty of coercion, they will have committed an offence under the Act.” but does not define or exclude societal coercion from a lack of social support, inadequate disability benefits and inadequate health-care (as is happening in Canada.)
Recommendation 6 says “if a medical professional has been proven to have acted outside of the permitted regulations or has attempted to coerce an individual, they will have committed an offence under the potential legislation and may be held liable.” There should be a bar to a doctor initiating the discussion about AS/VE.
This can be taken by the patient as meaning there will only be a poor outcome and repeated “conversations” can be coercive.
Recommendation 8 “recommends that where capacity is in doubt, a functional test for decision-making capacity should be part of the assessment for eligibility for assisted dying.” In good faith, the family must be able to require a test of decision-making capacity.
Recommendation 17 “recommends that the right to conscientious objection of all doctors and health workers directly involved in the provision of assisted dying should be protected in law. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee recommends that when a doctor or health care professional exercise this right, that this will not have the effect of closing off access to assisted dying to the patient. To this end, the law should place a requirement on a health care professional, who refuses to participate in the service, to refer onwards to a participating health care professionals and/or a national oversight body.”
This is a major problem for Hippocratic doctors who do not want to be involved in the process one iota. Alberta circumvents this by having a phone-line 24/7/365 so a patient (or their designate) can initiate the process through a single call.
Recommendation 22 “recommends that research be carried out on the relationship between economic disadvantage and health inequalities, and the question of people feeling a burden.”
Research is good. Adequate funding for supports, disability payments and proper health care is better.
Recommendation 24 “recommends that if assisted dying is introduced, an assessment by a qualified psychiatrist should be required in circumstances where the patient is deemed eligible but there are concerns about whether the person is competent to make an informed decision.”
In good faith, family members should be able to require a psychiatric review if they are concerned about an applicant’s cognitive function or mental illness.
Recommendation 25 “The Committee recommends that eligibility for assisted dying should be limited to Irish citizens or those ordinarily resident in the State for a period of not less than twelve months.”
Why would Ireland kill the citizens of any other country? There will be trouble from some aggrieved countries.
Recommendation 27 “recommends that only a person diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is…c) expected to cause death within six months (or, in the case of a person with a neuro-degenerative disease, illness or condition, within 12 months)…”
The committee knows that prognostication is notoriously inaccurate.
“d) causing suffering to the person that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person finds tolerable, is eligible to be assessed for assisted dying.”
A person can refuse curative treatment; define their suffering as intolerable; & require the state to kill them… Really?
Recommendations 29 “recommends that any potential legislation for assisted dying should establish a national body with sole responsibility for assisted dying services and related supports” 30: “recommends that the national body for assisted dying should be independent of the other state bodies” & 32: “recommends that all assisted dying applications and related processes should be overseen and governed by the independent national body” suggest that this agency is independent of all other government agencies and ministries.
JCAD should have defined which ministry is responsible for the function of this “independent” body.
Recommendation 35 “recommends that any potential legislation for assisted dying should provide a means of access to treatment for individuals who require assistance during the administration.” This is a delightfully vague clause, likely of paramount meaning.
This likely means that every facility — including private nursing homes — will be required to provide AS/VE.
It probably also means that Euthanasia is allowed if the individual “requires assistance during administration.”
OMISSIONS
There should be a process for a formal judicial review before any “assistance” is provided, if a spouse or family have persistent concerns about the competency, duress, coercion, or mental health of an applicant, etc.
CONCLUSION
If we do not allow one wrongful death by the Death Penalty, how can we ever allow one error though Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia?
Kevin Hay
You can follow Kevin on 𝕏 @ kevinhay77
(ps: Title Photo is of the Joint Committee holding the report.)