A woman was charged in court yesterday with the crime of assisting the suicide of a multiple sclerosis sufferer. The charge comes under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993 and it carries a penalty of up to 14 years in prison. It is the first court case of its kind in Ireland and it is being watched very closely by a constituent of mine, Marie Fleming. Marie has lived with multiple sclerosis for 35 years. The Tánaiste is aware that earlier this year Marie and her partner Tom Curran went to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the 1993 Act. The court did not find it to be unconstitutional, but it was stated that nothing in the judgment should be taken as necessarily implying that it would not be open to the State, in the event that the Oireachtas was satisfied that measures with appropriate safeguards could be introduced, to legislate to deal with a case such as the appellant.

What of the appellant? I spoke with Tom this morning and he said that Marie’s condition has worsened since the Supreme Court case. He told me that Marie is now completely immobile, other than her mouth. He said she is in constant pain and that the last time they tried to adjust her pain medication to deal with the increase in pain she lapsed into a coma so they cannot do that anymore. Marie’s ability to swallow is getting worse, making it increasingly difficult for her to eat. Tom said that Marie wants to live and that she has a lot of reasons to live, but her ability to eat may deteriorate and Marie has said she is adamant she will not use artificial feeding. In that case, under the current legislation Marie Fleming would starve to death. I asked Tom this morning what question Marie would put to the Tánaiste and to all of us in the Oireachtas. He told me that she would ask us the following: “Come and live my life for 24 hours and see if you think helping me to die should be a crime. Come and spend 24 hours in my house and see what you think.” He said Marie would ask for all of us to protect her family, that she would ask us in the Oireachtas to change the law so that she could die on her own terms without the threat of Tom Curran spending 14 years in prison.

When I raised the matter with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, earlier this year he told me that the Government would not consider changing the law as he is obliged to have regard to the wider public interest. My question is a very simple one. Does the Tánaiste believe that Tom Curran, Marie’s partner, should face the threat, as is the case under current legislation, of 14 years in prison for assisting Marie to die if she so chooses in the future?

First, I am conscious that there is a case currently before the courts on what is known as assisted suicide. Deputy Donnelly will appreciate that while the case is before the courts I cannot comment on it nor should any Member of the House. Perhaps it is best that the case would conclude before we as legislators have a discussion on assisted suicide.

I met with Tom Curran after the Marie Fleming case. Deputy Donnelly asked me a straight question. It is my view that as legislators we should address the issue in the House. It is a difficult issue. I have enormous sympathy for the situation in which Tom and Marie find themselves. There is no simple answer. When we come to look at the matter in terms of legislation it will not be a simple, straightforward issue. There is a range of ethical, legal and other issues associated with this topic. We should address the topic collectively as legislators. It should not be a Government and Opposition type of issue. We should address it first as human beings and then as legislators. We should approach it by putting ourselves in the situation that Tom and Marie are in.

We should address it very honestly. One must consider what is opened up if what is now known as assisted suicide is legislated for. These are obviously some of the considerations. They are considerations on which the Minister for Justice and Equality and his Department will inevitably seek legal advice. This is a matter we need to address. I suggest that once the present court case is over, we should find a way collectively, perhaps through one of the Oireachtas committees, of having the issue dealt with in a non-partisan way. The issue requires to be dealt with legislatively. We have seen the Supreme Court judgment and I read it at the time I met Tom. The straight answer to Deputy Donnelly's question is that I do believe we should deal with this as legislators.

I agree with virtually everything the Tánaiste said. It is a complex issue that the Oireachtas needs to address. The Tánaiste is very familiar with the case and will know, therefore, that both Tom and Marie have asked that guidelines, issued by the DPP, be put in place, probably with legislative backup from the Oireachtas. The DPP could provide guidance on what is considered a qualifying case where a penalty would not apply. The UK DPP has such guidelines already in place. We need them here very quickly.

I agree that we cannot talk about the current case. However, we should be able to debate this subject while the case is proceeding. We have no idea how long it will take. It is the first case of its kind in the country and could take a very long time. I and, I am sure, the Tánaiste would hate to have to meet anyone in Tom Curran's circumstances to explain we were not able to change the law in time.

As a reasonable input to any Oireachtas debate, an expert report might be very useful. It seems an expert report could be produced quickly and in a way that would not interfere with the current case before the courts. I ask the Tánaiste to consider commissioning an expert report, to be concluded reasonably quickly, that we in the Oireachtas could use to inform our debate on changing the legislation on this matter as soon as possible.

I remind Members that, under Standing Order 57, there is an obligation to refrain from comment that might affect proceedings in progress.

As I have said, we cannot discuss the case in progress. The Deputy mentioned DPP guidelines. The DPP is entirely independent and we respect that. The Deputy suggested a way should be found in which to have an expert report compiled on this issue. It is a very positive suggestion and one that I will discuss with my Government colleagues.