Dr. Simon Mills:

I echo what Ms Staunton says. This is a place for, in so far as is possible, our dispassionate legal opinion to be offered. I hope we have furnished that. I will now deal with the matters raised by the various Deputies and Senators.

I find myself in agreement with both Senator Bacik's position and the contrary position that has been presented. There may well be circumstances in which a Bill such as that which I have presented to the committee envisages that a two-doctor system may require deviation in certain circumstances. It may, for example, require deviation in favour of a single-doctor opinion which - as I said in reply to Senator Crown - may involve, for example, the making of regulations and an explanation of why, in the circumstances of a case, only a single opinion was furnished. The draft Bill I provided uses language such as "no fewer than two doctors" because there may be circumstances in which, in order to obtain a properly circumspect view of the totality of an individual pregnant woman's care, more than two opinions may well be required. I certainly do not exclude that possibility in the draft Bill I prepared.

Deputy Terence Flanagan referred yesterday to doctors not feeling restricted by the current situation and asked members and us to infer that there is no requirement for legislation. He must have been listening to different hearings to those to which I was listening. I heard a doctor say "I do not want to go to jail". It is difficult to imagine any greater restriction on a doctor than a fear of losing his or her liberty. I also heard a doctor say "I need clarity on this". I think I heard another doctor say "I need clarity on this". I think I heard the Medical Council state that it needs clarity. I am pretty sure I have heard the Legislature say that we need clarity and legislation on this. There is a chance that at the inquiries Deputy Terence Flanagan attended yesterday, what he contends was said was actually stated. However, it was not said at this inquiry and it has not been stated in public discourse.

The Deputy posed two specific questions, the first of which related to whether doctors have a duty of care towards the embryo, the foetus or the unborn child. Yes, of course they do. Any obstetrician or general practitioner involved in the care of a pregnant woman will inform one that in the generality of matters he or she has two patients in front of him or her. I do not demur from that point of view in so far as it is held by doctors. The Deputy's other question related to whether a foetus or embryo with a lethal foetal abnormality has any rights. I am of the view that the termination of a pregnancy is always a morally serious decision. However, what I know is that the Supreme Court has told lawyers and legislators everywhere in this jurisdiction that the born alive test is an essential index of the right to life as comported by the Constitution.

Ironically enough, in his opening remarks Senator Walsh referred to the need for legislation, thus suggesting that he was at the inquiries I watched yesterday as opposed to those which Deputy Terence Flanagan was watching. The Senator referred to quotes attributed to Lord Steel and the latter's concerns about the Act introduced in the UK and its consequences. With the greatest of respect, there is a very simple solution to that - namely, to refrain from introducing the 1967 UK Act here. We should introduce something different which contains safeguards and which is consistent with Article 40.3.3° and with the needs of pregnant women.

Two questions on the draft Bill were posed by Deputy Ó Ríordáin the first of which was about lethal foetal abnormality. As drafted the Bill is consistent with Article 40.3.3^oas interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I was also asked about the question of conscientious objection and whether it is unusual to include conscientious objection in a Bill. It is but this is a sui generis, one of a kind legal, social and political matter about which have strong feelings. I would simply observe that for all the criticism of the 1967 Act and the regime it introduced, it also includes a role for conscientious objection. That is one aspect of the 1967 Act that we should import.

I agree with Ms Schweppe and Ms Staunton on the question of psychiatry. Regarding Deputy Tóibín's questions about psychiatry, I would ask him to sit down and read the testimony given yesterday by Dr. McCarthy.