Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With this amendment, we propose to insert the following text into the Bill:

(other than a general practitioner who has notified the Minister that the practitioner does not wish the premises at which he or she provides healthcare services to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a relevant healthcare premises)

Including this line on page 4, line 19 is to provide for the definition of "relevant healthcare provider" and that where that includes a general practitioner, it would, therefore, exclude any general practitioner who had notified the Minister in the terms I have just outlined. The effect of that would be to provide for a GP with a conscientious objection to the provision of the service in question who does not want to be in any way, shape or form to be used in the context of any threat by the Garda of prosecution or any attempt to move people on - people who are engaging in legitimate and respectful freedom of expression - in order that there would not be anomalous situation whereby a general practitioner who agrees 100% with the concerns being expressed would find themselves at risk of being used for the purposes of the prosecution of a law he or she regards as unjust in the first place. You could describe it as the "not in my name" amendment.

This is a very straightforward issue. It is quite clear that this legislation is unprecedented. It interferes with normal freedom of expression in a very surprising and unexpected way. It puts at risk of public harassment by the gardaí or otherwise or the forces of law and order people who see themselves as solid and responsible citizens objecting to something they regard as a breach of fundamental authentic human rights. It is all the more appropriate that those who are practising medicine in good faith and good conscience and honouring, as many do not, the Hippocratic oath and the time-honoured principle of doing no harm and doing as much good as possible, but first doing no harm - primum non nocere - could be separated from any possible implication in the workings of this law.

That is the proposal. I had set out on Committee Stage that I would be tabling these amendments again on Report Stage. Most of them with the exception of the first I withdrew precisely so that the Department and the Minister would have time to consider what are in my view and that of many others reasonable proposals that seek to mitigate the worst effects of this strange and unprecedented new law. This is a law that I believe to be of doubtful constitutionality, and I have said so before. If the Minister wants to propose this law, he should only do so where he seeks to reassure people that he is seeking to limit its scope and not to embarrass or compromise any people who have objections in good faith to the procedures at the heart of this legislation.