Professor Kieran Murphy:

Quite a number of questions have been asked. I will deal with Deputy Dowds's first. He sought clarification on sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act. I do not have that information off pat, but I will cite the sections. Section 58 reads:

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life.

Section 59 reads:

Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I hope this answers the Deputy's question on sections 58 and 59.

As to the question on the health of the woman, the council was asked to comment on the expert group's report, which was clearly concerned with options for the Government in implementing the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which related to the life of the woman rather than the health. Consequently, the council has not taken a view on the health of the woman.

I regret Deputy Healy's opinion that we have not answered adequately in terms of emergencies and locations. I will restate the council's position. As outlined in paragraph 6.5 of our submission, we believe that special procedures "do not need to be developed for emergency situations". The principles that apply to clinical decision making should apply irrespective of whether a case is an emergency.

Similarly, with regard to paragraph 6.6 - locations, the council believes that the location of medical facilities is not a matter for the council. Rather, it is a matter for the Minister for Health to determine using criteria set out under licensing legislation.

Deputy Catherine Byrne asked about paragraph 21.4 of the guide, which deals with extreme immaturity. The council statement in regard to "extreme immaturity of the baby" is clear. It refers to where there is little chance that a baby will survive. Obviously, where a baby is delivered over 28 weeks, the likelihood of it surviving is high. However, if delivered at less than 20 weeks, this is inconsistent with survival. I suggest that this is an issue that should be teased out more with obstetricians when they make their submissions later this morning.

With regard to Deputy Fitzpatrick's question in relation to "evidence based", the Deputy will note the final sentence of paragraph 21.1 which states that the medical council provides in its guidance that a full assessment of any risk in the light of the clinical research on an issue should be taken. This reflects the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, medicine is continuously evolving and doctors are encouraged to utilise new research to inform their decision making. Members of the Oireachtas will be aware that there is now a legal requirement on all doctors to maintain their professional competence. This is done by their ensuring they remain up to date in their practice. The purpose of this is to ensure that the public is protected because their doctors are up to date and have informed themselves about new research in their particular area.

On the issue raised by Deputy Crown in regard to clarity for doctors, I believe this issue should also be teased out with the obstetricians and psychiatrists when they make their presentations to the committee later this morning. The council's view is that it is in the public interest that doctors have legal clarity when making clinical decisions. In so far as legislation underpinned by regulation will provide this clarification to doctors, the council supports its introduction. It is important that members are aware that the guidelines issued by the council are not a legal code. They follow on from legislation and reflect the current legal framework.