A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we have 25 minutes remaining. For fear of criticism from the media I do not think we should finish ahead of time and leave them to criticise us.
I do not know whether I explained myself clearly when I spoke earlier. There are a number of questions I want to ask the Minister. Obviously, it is appropriate that if somebody aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, that should be an offence and one can be charged with murder or manslaughter. It is the question of manslaughter that bothers me. I know murder is where the intention was to kill and therefore obviously it is murder, whereas manslaughter arises as a consequence of driving dangerously, drunken driving or whatever. I am anxious to ensure in the case, say, of the life support machine or poison left loosely at home, is there any possibility that in such cases somebody could be charged with manslaughter? I know that some of the literature talks about manslaughter while in the same breath refers to manslaughter by criminal negligence. Am I to take it that both are the same — perhaps the Minister's officials would advise us — or is there a distinction? That is one question I want to pose to the Minister.
I know there is a safeguard later that prosecution can be taken only by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that one could not have some fundamentalists, as Deputy Gilmore said, or some very extreme people taking a very harsh view, taking prosecutions almost as a hobby and putting families and individuals through terrible trauma. We witnessed such cases in Great Britain recently. It is my belief that if and when any family gives approval for a life support machine to be turned off it is done with the object of relieving pain and suffering, of dealing more humanely with a loved one for whom there is no hope and who may have been on a machine for six months, a year or two years. I should like that clarified. It applies in relation to the provisions of this section.
I acknowledge what the Minister has said. She has been very forthcoming in her comments, particularly those she has made in relation to the press. I feel very strongly about this, since I know the families of suicide victims, in some cases very well. I acknowledge that the media have the job of informing the public. I do not want to restrict that in any way, but there is a balance to be struck that brings with it a certain sense of responsibility.
Thankfully, family law cases are held in camera in this country so that the privacy of individuals can be protected. I think it was Judge Susan Denham, or perhaps somebody else, who said recently that while it is right to protect the anonymity of individuals, details of such cases should be published because they would be enlightening and serve an educational informative role for the community at large. I support that view. Equally, I feel strongly that in the case of legislation of that type — I acknowledge I have no amendments tabled — might it not have been a good idea that the anonymity of the individual might be protected? If we are to remove through legislation the criminal stigma of suicide, I contend the social stigma will remain if the matter is to be sensationalised and dealt with in an insensitive way in the media. We have read recently the kind of graphic detail which has and does cause extreme pain and suffering to the family, loved ones and friends of people who died. I do not want what I am saying to cause headlines — I would ask the media to respect that — because that is not my reason for saying it. But we need to be extremely sensitive here. We can impart the information and talk about the facts. I know we live in a small country but the anonymity of the Kilkenny incest victim and that of Miss X was protected, but the details of what we are talking about were revealed. I should love to think the same would apply in the case of suicide; otherwise we will not get away from the stigma.
We should remember that the real victims of suicide are the people left behind, many of whom feel so guilty. I respect the views of people like Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy Bhamjee, who are doctors whereas I am not. I do not want to pretend to being some kind of expert, but I did avail of the opportunity last evening to speak to a leading psychologist and I have spoken to social workers in recent days about this legislation. They both said the same thing. They said it would be wrong to assume that somebody will show signs of depression immediately before committing suicide. Indeed, the psychologist tole me that people who suffer from depression immediately before committing suicide will appear to be in great form and will send out all the wrong signals to family and friends. Sometimes families and friends will ask themselves: why did I not notice? Why did I not do this or that? The psychologist to whom I spoke last evening said that it is counselling of the family of the victim that is so important afterwards, because the families feel so guilty. That is why the Irish Association for Victim Support have such a crucial role to play in helping such victims. The Minister responded to the points I raised on the question of insurance and I thank her for doing so. The reason I raised those points was that they are often brought to my attention by people.
Suicide is a major problem regardless of what the statistics indicate. In the past few weeks a woman, whose husband had just committed suicide, sought my help in relation to family matters. I do not want to give too many details but I had to contact the local Garda Síochána in Tallaght on a particular matter. When I spoke to the superintendent on or about 20 April he informed me that they had dealt with five suicide cases that month. That is an alarming figure. I know that Tallaght is a big area but I was shocked when I heard that there were five suicides in the early part of April. I believe therefore that the true figures are much greater than what the statistics published by the Central Statistics Office indicate. Many suicides go unreported having regard to the fact that a drug overdose can lead to a heart attack leading one to question whether a person died as a result of the overdose or the heart attack.
If an insane person — no reference is made to such persons in the Bill — aids and abets another person to commit suicide what will the position be, given that our laws relating to insanity and to mental health in general are out-of-date? In relation to a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another will the prosecutions differ, as between manslaughter and murder, and are there different degrees?
If we are saying that attempted suicide should no longer be a criminal offence it is ironic that if two people set out to commit suicide and one is lucky or, indeed, unlucky enough to survive they will be guilty of a criminal offence. As I said on Second Stage, I wonder if anyone will ever be prosecuted. If two people get into a car and decide to kill themselves and one happens to survive because someone manages to rescue them, as the Bill is framed, that person could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the other person to commit suicide. It is a bit unfair that that person will suffer because he or she survived. The Minister may say that it is better that they be prosecuted than die but I would like her to clarify the position.
