Dr. Alan D. P. Brady:

That is a fair assessment, but there will possibly be some leeway. The obligation on the State is to vindicate it in so far as it is practicable. There may be leeway for the Oireachtas to take a decision on precisely how it wants to define it.

In regard to Deputy Conway's question, section 23 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act provides that a person over the age of 16 can consent to medical treatment regardless of the position of his or her parents. The recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, which has been commended, takes account of the fact that in most instances consent will be exercised through the parents. It will be only in rare or exceptional circumstances that an alternative view is taken, and the best interest of the child should govern. The X case is not a good example because the parents were in favour of their child having an abortion. A better example for that purpose is the C case, because the child was in care and the parents objected to the decision being made by the HSE. Substantial psychiatric evidence was heard in the District Court in that case. After examining the transcript of evidence, the High Court stated that it failed to see how any court could have taken a different view on the need to allow that child to have a termination. I do not want to second-guess the precise legislation to be introduced on foot of a Law Reform Commission report at this early juncture but our position is that the best interests of the child should be paramount. That has recently become the case in certain litigation under the Constitution in light of the recent amendment.