Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. It is clear that they put a tremendous amount of work into their consideration of the issue. Ms Schweppe mentions in her submission that the question of when life begins has never, for the purposes of the Constitution, been addressed. Is it her view that this question should be addressed and, if so, how might it best be done?

Dr. Mills is, if I may use the term, just what the doctor ordered. His draft Bill covers all spheres, including medical, legal and, in particular, medical ethics, and I commend him for his courage in publishing the proposals. I welcome his comments on the need to facilitate a clearer expression of the centrist position or middle ground in both the public space and the various political fora. That is something many of us in public life often seek but very seldom achieve. If it could be achieved in this and other matters, we would be able to resolve contentious issues much more quickly.

Section 9 of the draft Bill deals with the issue of foetal abnormality, a very clearly and scientifically defined issue. However, the issue of contention for most people in regard to this matter is that of suicide, a matter dealt with in section 7. In fact, whether one agrees or disagrees that the threat of suicide should be a ground for termination, the difficulty arises in the context of the evidence we heard yesterday, namely, that one psychiatrist will say a threat of suicide is not and never will be a ground for termination, while another will disagree. In that context, how does Dr. Mills see the provisions in this section working in practice? If the threat of suicide is permitted as a ground for abortion under legislation, will we have a situation where it will become known very quickly which psychiatrists are likely to give a positive answer and vice versa? How does one deal with the issue of suicide when, according to psychiatrists themselves, the question of determining suicide risk is an inexact science?

My final question is probably outside the remit of the discussion and I will not object if the Chairman does not allow it or the witnesses do not wish to respond. In the context of claims that will most likely be made later today or tomorrow by other contributors, we must consider the notion of the intention of the electorate versus the decision of the Supreme Court. Ms Staunton has mentioned that the referenda on the 12th and 25th amendments to the Constitution seem to give a definitive view from the electorate on the suicide issue. However, the argument has been and will be made again in the course of these discussions that the results of these referenda cannot be seen strictly as a decision on whether suicide should be removed as a ground for an abortion, in so far as some of those who voted "No" on those occasions were, in fact, opposed to the provision of abortion on that ground.