Professor Veronica O'Keane:

I will not repeat what my colleagues have said. However, I wish to make two points in response to the questions that have been asked. I refer to Deputy Kelleher's question about the 130,000 women who have gone to the UK and the percentage of that number who may have been suicidal. This can be answered by inference, although not directly, from looking at the reasons women have abortions in other jurisdictions where it is legal and available. Most women have abortions for mental health reasons. It would be my view and one could say in all probability that certainly a percentage of those women who go to the UK do so because they are very mentally distressed and suicidal. The issue of suicide is important. I have to disagree with my colleague, Professor Casey, in this regard but suicide does not always occur in the context of mental illness. People can have an episode of depression. They could be at the beginning of an episode of depression which is a mental disorder; it is not really what would constitute a mental illness. They may take their life in the context of stresses that are unbearable to them, such as unemployment in the case of men, which may be more familiar to us.

As for the opening of the flood-gates and what this legislation might mean and might create further down the line, my advice as a professional is that this debate is springing out of a need. It is springing out of reality, as a result of cases we have all lived with nationally and which have traumatised us. We are here to advise the legislators about it. I do not think legislation should be prevented because there is a fear that the legislation could be abused. We need to put in place some mechanisms so that it will not be abused, such as with the mental health legislation. An inspector of mental health services inspects the service from the point of view of the patient, to ascertain whether psychiatric units are adequate and also whether the treatment of patients is adequate. Any legislation could be managed in this way.

I refer to Deputy Conway's point about two psychiatrists being necessary. We seem to have differing views here. As professionals we will all work within the law, whatever it is. If we do not work within it, the professional organisations will pull us in. There is a system of reporting colleagues. I do not really see why two psychiatrists are necessary for this particular legislation if there is a redress board for the patient. I believe that is one of the recommendations of the expert group.