Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Burke, Dr. McCaffrey, Dr. Milner and Dr. Monaghan for a really interesting session. As one of the witnesses mentioned, medical treatment is evolving and what we want is robust legislation that allows medics to do their jobs in the future. That is the bottom line. That includes mental health and mental health treatment. I have some specific questions about the heads of the Bill for all of the witnesses.

With regard to head 1, appropriate location, do they have a view on the designated hospitals or do they think that list should be extended to cover all approved hospitals?

At present, the definition of the unborn makes no allowance for where a foetus has no prospect of survival or, indeed, is already dead. Do the witnesses think we should consider changing the definition of "unborn". Dr. Burke has already given his opinion on heads 2 and 4 and their amalgamation. Do the rest of the witnesses have a view, given that the Medical Council and the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have indicated that it would be useful to merge them on the basis that they go to the crux of the issue, which is a threat to the health of the mother in pregnancy?

With regard to the requirement in head 4 for two psychiatrists, a view has been expressed that this might be unduly onerous, particularly depending on where one is located in the country. Ironically, it might be more difficult to comply with that requirement in Dublin than it might be in other locations. As Dr. Burke said, one might be less well served in Dublin than one might be in other parts of the country. Is the requirement for two psychiatrists unduly onerous? More importantly, is it unduly restrictive in requiring one of the psychiatrists to come from one of the hospitals that have been nominated for the purposes of carrying out a termination?

As regards the provisions under heads 6, 7 and 8 and the timescales provided, do the witnesses believe those timescales are workable or could they be further reduced?

My final question is about the penalty of 14 years imprisonment provided for under the legislation. Do the witnesses have a view on the severity of that penalty?