Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to register my disquiet and this is no fault of the Chairman, but he has been put in charge of an express chair which is not at all satisfactory to the purposes we have to achieve. It certainly illustrates the difference between the notion of a hearing and an inquiry.

I did not quite understand the answer that Dr. Holohan gave in regard to a review in terms of the equal right to life of the unborn. Given that the unborn is a constitutionally protected actor, why is there not the requirement that there would be a voice, an advocate for the unborn, to test whether the initial certification is even necessary by the definitions provided?

Dr. Holohan referred to the third principle, that termination of pregnancy is always a medical intervention. Is there any other example he can give where doctors are called on to make a certification of a procedure in the absence of any evidence-base, particularly where it has such far-reaching consequences, fatal and final consequences, for a constitutionally protected actor? It was clear that there is no evidence that abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation. There was unanimity on that point at the hearings.

Dr. Holohan suggests that the only reason that we have head 4 is that the Supreme Court requires that we make provision for this, but surely he is aware of the separation of powers and that it remains the prerogative of the Oireachtas, of the Legislature, not to activate an interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court where it would consider that to do so would be dangerous and unjust. It was for that reason that we did not have legislation and why the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, said he would not legislate for the X case because it would have the effect of bringing abortion into Ireland. That is a legal point but I am sure it is one on which Dr. Holohan has taken advice.

I also note that Dr. Holohan said that the numbers were quite likely not to be significant. Will he accept, however, that the consequences will be very significant for whatever children are involved? I refer in particular to head 4.

The subjective nature of the psychiatric assessment is one Dr. Holohan acknowledged in his presentation. Given that subjective nature, has he had any regard to the experience of other jurisdictions such as California and New Zealand where similar apparently extremely tight grounds were set up in the area of mental health - with we should note suicidal ideation being an even more subjective issue to assess - and where it was noted, even by the Californian Supreme Court, that it was surprising the extent of abortions that took place on foot of that?

Will Dr. Holohan accept that, in reality, the only checks and balances he is talking about is that there will be two psychiatrists and that the obstetrician will have no role in disputing whether the abortion is necessary to end the real and substantial risk and will have a role only in the mechanics of carrying out the abortion and other related physical issues? Therefore, the only check and balance will be one psychiatrist backed up by another, two people who have a psychiatric qualification in an area that is subjective.