John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I sense a degree of frustration from the witnesses with some of the politicians. If I can attempt to frame it from my own perspective, it is in the context of the comments about the normalisation of abortion as healthcare and the global challenge with that. I can identify with that. Clearly, and I mean this is a very positive way, the witnesses have got their heads around that. Culturally there is a shift or movement in that direction, as reflected in the referendum. There is a piece of me that has a foot in both traditions, the strongly cultural piece and the direction in which we appear to be moving. My questions are based on coming from that. I am also on the Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying. We have had some amazing witnesses over the last three or four months speaking about different systems that are in place. It is very interesting culturally to hear about where some societies are. This is the first conversation we have had about that. It is in that context.

I understand the inputs in respect of the three-day piece. I am taken by the evidence our guests are presenting today and the evidence we received from other bodies. I accept that the rigidity of it is an issue. I do not accept the rigidity of the three days as being a thing that ought to go on, necessarily. I accept what our guests are saying about the rigidity it imposes. Do they also accept that if it is broadened too much, we are potentially drifting into a much broader interpretation of the timespan in which terminations are allowed?

I accept what our guests say about the research. It is valuable input that it would be very difficult to carry out. I think Senator Kyne was coming from the right place in asking if we have any figures suggesting that. I am also taken with one of the inputs from the National Women's Council on conscientious objection and its monitoring. I have raised it in this committee. There is an issue when the State passes a law. We did see that in respect of availability, which I think will probably increase over time. If any of the legislation around this was loosened, where do the witnesses see practitioners going in terms of conscientious objection? The National Women's Council raises this in page 6 of its submission to us, stating that the Medical Council's guide to professional conduct and ethics for registered medical professions is clear that in cases of conscientious objections, patients should be informed that they have a right to seek treatment elsewhere. Doctors must facilitate the transfer of the patient to an alternative provider. What is the experience of our guests in terms of that actually happening? I was very concerned about it in the early days of the reports.

I will come to my final question. I accept what the witnesses are saying about the rigid gestational time periods. The reason I referred to the assisted dying committee was not to compare but just about the structure. Legislators are conscious of the issue of what people voted for. Is this what people had in mind, to actually loosen things? I think the witnesses make a very compelling case on the rigid gestational period. Do they understand the challenge that poses for some legislators? If we loosen it----