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

I welcome our guests here this afternoon. It is very important to say at the outset that despite the scepticism of some of the voices this afternoon in respect of the worth, value or legitimacy, even, of this set of hearings, whatever the respective views of Government, as an opposition voice I am accepting the bona fides of it, and it is hugely important that this is understood. That is why we are here: to listen to a wide variety of views, each of them equally respected. I welcome the respective contributions of the witnesses, as I have those that I have already heard.

To try to help us fully understand the position that each of the contributors has given, I wish to clarify a point in Dr. Montwill's contribution on consent. All I am asking is for is an elaboration and an explanation. She stated, under point five on consent, that a patient must give her consent for any medical procedure. It is accepted that ultimately it is the woman who will decide, if a determination is made in respect of legality or if this Bill were to pass. Dr. Montwell went on to state that it would be unethical to impose a procedure on a patient when the patient may not have full mental capacity or be able to give a valid consent to such a procedure. She went on to say that impaired judgment could be seen to affect the patient's capacity to consent to the procedure and her right to bodily integrity would be violated. If, ultimately, the decision is the woman's, Dr. Montwell is suggesting that in some or all cases it would be the professionals who made a decision, irrespective of the woman's view. It is open to that interpretation. As someone who believes that, in the event of the passing of this legislation, it is absolutely the case that the woman must have the final say - she cannot be compelled - then I believe we need an elaboration in respect of point five, please. That is the only reason I highlight it.

Dr. McCabe's executive summary states that claims have been made that some women are suicidal because of the pregnancy only. She goes on in the same paragraph to say that psychiatry has little to offer this group. Given the contribution of my colleague one moment ago I would have thought that psychiatry certainly has a role to play and that the whole purpose and intent of the intervention is to assist, to help and to prevent the woman from taking that course of action, and that this is where we would work from at all times. Fully 0% is what we want to see, not any percentage. I find that a most unusual point in Dr. McCabe's executive summary.

Not to pass on Dr. Malone's contribution, but I wish to ask a question in respect of Dr. Ó Domhnaill's submission. One sentence of his stretches the boundaries of credibility - that is, his suggestion that those psychiatrists would be more likely to approve abortions if this Bill becomes law. In the context of Article 40.3.3° still standing, in the context of the extent of the wider interest in and the requirement to report all such decisions directly to the Minister of the day and in the context of the legal measures that many are uncomfortable about and that could be taken in the event of any abuse, does Dr. McCabe really believe that there are professionals in our psychiatric services in this country who would do as she has suggested and would take the risk if were only from a selfish point of view?