Dr. John Monaghan:

My ageing brain is finding it difficult to keep up with the pace of the questions. I will start with Deputy Durkan who asked about the rarity of cases and evidence, referring I think to the X case in the Supreme Court. I was not sure whether the Deputy was referring to other rare cases but his observation on the X case was very interesting. The relationship between the law and the practice of medicine is a very critical interaction in this instance. Next Monday's hearings will be critical for the committee's decision on the question of the psychiatric evidence. My understanding is that if the medical evidence does not support it and we have a legal obligation to the Supreme Court there is a conflict which it is beyond a doctor to recognise. A doctor is ethically obliged to act on evidence. I regret that the expert group did not invite in expert psychiatric evidence because it seems as if this must be done by this committee in a public forum rather than by careful study of the evidence available. It is a very difficult issue and I appreciate the position in which legislators are placed in trying to deal with these two different aspects of the problem, the medical evidence and the Supreme Court decision.

Deputy Durkan also asked about surgical means. I did not check on the lethal injection but I did consult with a colleague yesterday on the question of surgical termination as in suction termination whereby the baby is sucked out and destroyed. This is the sort of technique that has been in use for many years in the UK since abortion was legalised. I asked my colleague whether this is commonly done and she said it is, principally because it is cheaper, even though the medical means are more appropriate. I cannot give any figure for the lethal injection but I know that patients of mine have availed of that and it is not rare but I cannot give any figures on frequency of use.