Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank each of the speakers and apologise to Dr. Burke that I was not back in time to hear his oral presentation, but I thank him for his written submission.

I am not directing my questions at anyone in particular, but I am anxious to learn from the witnesses if there are particular differences in their collective experiences because of their largely rural, non-Dublin city locations, as against those of the other witnesses we heard earlier. I refer to some of the questions we asked in relation to the situations that might apply. We presume obstetricians-gynaecologists not being registered on the specialist listing with the Medical Council would be something the witnesses would reflect also because they would have colleagues on the general rather than specialist listing. That is important.

In terms of a smaller number of professional colleagues, does this create particular situations, given the larger body of colleagues those from the major Dublin-based hospitals would have to call on? For instance, I refer to the issue of conscientious objection, to which Dr. Monaghan referred. Are there given situations where the witnesses may not have the complement of necessary professionals to make the evaluations? For instance, in relation to the risk of loss of life from physical illness, we are looking at two medical practitioners - one obstetrician-gynaecologist and other a medical partitioner in a specialist division. Is there sufficient professional cover on each of the hospital sites across the jurisdiction currently designated - the 19 within the proposed legislation - to comfortably ensure there will not be unnecessary delays and that the assessment can be made in a hospital where the woman is presenting and that there will not be a requirement for an examination at two locations on the part of the woman involved? Surely, the professionals would go to her at whatever hospital site she was located.

It was exposed to us when we spoke to the masters of the various Dublin-based maternity sites that they had no intensive care facilities within the three hospital sites. I put up my hand and said I did not realise that. Are there infrastructural difficulties which should be shared with us and on which we might be able to reflect because I have made the point that the passage of legislation is not only about what it says but also about the capacity to implement and that means resourcing?

I wish to ask about one particular issue which has not presented before, that is, the incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Again, I put up my hand and say I always thought an ectopic pregnancy occurred outside the womb, but it is all about learning, which is why we are here. Are the witnesses making a case to include this in the legislation? Will they elaborate a little on it? Do they accept that we have made no other such exceptions in terms of physical illnesses presenting? Might it not be covered? Would the witnesses' professional assessment be sufficient to determine whether a termination was required in the so-called 7% of cases that present a risk to the life of the mother?