Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions and preface my remarks by saying it is regrettable that we tend to elevate or diminish contributions depending on our own perspective. We are all trying to grapple with something that is enormously complex.

I agree that the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terms do an injustice to the complexity of the issue. We should be more tolerant of all contributions. To describe some contributions as buffoonery is to miss the point and the complexity of the issue.

In the contribution of Dr. Mahony today and in January, she made reference to the lack of clarity and the fear of going to jail for acting in a manner to protect women's lives and the lives of the patients. I have read the heads of the Bill. Where is the clarity in respect of vindicating that right to treatment that was not clear up to now? Perhaps it will emerge when the legislation proper is published but I do not see the clear referral pathway where a woman can access the service she requires. I would like the witnesses to take me through the heads of the Bill that provide that legal clarity. What does Dr. Mahony see that she can do today that she felt she may go to jail for in January?

Dr. Boylan made the point that this is conservative and does not deal with a host of issues we should deal with if we were more courageous. Many of us are fearful of the law of unintended consequences. The figure for suicidal tendencies during pregnancy is one in 500,000. If there are 100,000 pregnancies in the country per year, including miscarriages, it suggests that under head 4, which provides for suicidal women during pregnancy, we should be looking at one case every five years availing of legislation under head 4. If it emerges during a review of the legislation that it is far more than that, will the three witnesses consider the legislation is flawed?

Head 19 has been referred to in the context of the chill factor and the consequences for doctors and women. I might have sympathy for the woman being subject to serious sanction but it is important to keep a chill factor in the legislation. Reference has been made to the 1861 Act. Without that provision, are we facilitating a more liberal regime than envisaged by law under the previous headings?