Ms Jennifer Schweppe:

I thank members for their questions. Senator Bacik inquired as to whether we should have different legislation for emergency and non-emergency situations. Her argument in this regard is quite compelling. When we look to introduce legislative change, we often look not to our nearest neighbours but to our next nearest neighbours in England and Wales. That is the sort of framework I had in mind in the context of legislating for this issue.

With regard to Deputy Terence Flanagan's point, in the same way that some doctors did not feel restricted by the current legislation, other doctors did. The fact that there is a difference needs to be addressed. Do I believe the unborn child is entitled to any rights? I respect the constitutional position that the unborn has a right to life.

Senator Walsh referred to the issue of language. I am of the view that we should use constitutional language, certainly in respect of foetal life, that is, to use the term "unborn". The term "pregnant woman" does not have any emotive, moral or ethical undertones. In the context of viability in the period between 20 and 24 weeks, foetal abnormalities are generally picked up at an early stage of the pregnancy. Foetal abnormality scans generally take place at approximately 18 weeks. I am of the opinion that any issue would be raised before that stage.

In reply to Deputy Timmins's point, I hope I state in my submission that the issue of when life begins has been addressed. The issue of when unborn life ends has not. I just wanted to clarify that.

In the context of Deputy Tóibín's point, doctors make assessments in respect of the risks and benefits of medical treatment every day. It is what they do for a living and we trust them to make those assessments as to what risks and benefits are associated with treatment. We need to simply apply what they do every day in this very narrow context of medical treatment.