Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and welcome the witnesses. We have a very short period of time so I will try to be brief. I have questions rather than opinions, and would welcome hearing opinions on my questions.

In terms of GPs having conscientious objections, should there be an obligation on a GP, when a patient arrives at a surgery and has reason to believe there is a substantial risk to her life because of pregnancy, to inform her of his or her conscientious objection to a termination of pregnancy in the context of a threat to life by suicide or physical health grounds? According to the Bill, when a woman presents to the panel or review group comprising an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, there is a provision whereby a GP can be informed if she so wishes but, equally, the GP is not informed if she declines. Who will provide aftercare treatment for a woman who goes before a panel which deems that her life is at real and substantial risk for physical or mental reasons? If the woman does not want her GP to be made aware of that, where in the Bill should there be some obligation for aftercare to be provided without her GP being informed of the termination? Clearly, a certain amount of aftercare would be required in that context.

I refer to the comments of Professor McAuliffe. We need clarity. An issue which has been spoken about around the country is foetuses on the cusp of viability. Does an obstetrician, in making a decision about an intervention for physical or mental reasons to save the life of the mother, take into account the viability of the foetus? If he or she can delay intervention for a number of days or weeks without further threat to the life of the mother, is that taken into account? I refer to the two patient approach which has often been spoken about. Is foetal viability of secondary consideration? Many people are agitated and confused about current medical practice. Article 40.3.3° is quite clear and specific in that there is an obligation to make every effort to vindicate the life of the child. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on current medical practice in maternity units throughout the country.

I note the comments of Professor Murphy. The IMO guidelines in 2009 included the risk of suicide as grounds for termination in the State. Is that based on clinical evidence or is it because of the legal obligations under the current Constitution, as interpreted by the X case? Do our maternity hospitals currently have the physical and personnel capacity to implement the Bill if it is passed with the current heads?