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

I join with the Chairman in welcoming each of our guests this morning. I wish to put a question specifically to Dr. McCarthy. In relation to the five obligations of the State as set out in the expert group report two of them are referred to as follows: to establish criteria or procedures in legislation or otherwise for measuring or determining the risk to her life, and the other, to provide precision as to the criteria by which a doctor is to assess that risk. Does Dr. McCarthy believe that the draft legislation before us fulfils both of those two criteria from his professional perspective? For the panel, there is a requirement for three professional opinions, somebody from obstetrics and two psychiatrists. I would like to ask for your individual opinion. We would like to know, whether, in the witnesses' respective opinions, this number is too high? Does the requirement of unanimity of all three medical professionals render it difficult or, perhaps, even unworkable in practice and place an undue burden on the woman? In relation to their respective experiences - and they have indicated they reflect both City of Dublin and outside the City of Dublin experiences - will the issue of conscientious objection have any impact on the numbers available, those in practice associated with the respective 19 indicated-for-approval sites? Many psychiatrists are not actually associated with any of these yet one must be in terms of the way the draft legislation is presented. Do you see difficulties presenting there? In your own opinion, who should lead the process? It is not clear in the legislation whether it should be an obstetrician or two psychiatrists. One would expect it would be one, at least, of the two psychiatrists and that person would be attached to the individual site.

In regard to the appeals process because it is particular to head 4 on suicidality, is the timeframe reasonable and workable? Before the Chair pulls me up, as we have only three minutes to ask questions and elicit as much information as possible, I wish to ask Dr. Maeve Doyle, in her role as child and adolescent psychiatrist, if the Bill deals adequately or at all with consentive and minor adults or adults without capacity - that may or may not be under her particular expertise but perhaps she would like to offer her opinion. That is very important. She is only one of two voices coming from a child and adolescent view over the course of today's hearings. I would like to know each of your respective opinions.