Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have two questions. As regards the first one, I would appreciate it if the experts could give me a specific answer. As regards the heads of the Bill, the current position on the interpretation of the balance between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn is given in the X case. We are told by the Government that this will tighten up the situation and, in effect, make it better. As regards the tightening up and the clarification, I might guess how the experts will answer, but can they say whether they are in agreement with that, whatever they think or do not think about the X case? The current practice requires the X case with all its unknowns. The witnesses are operating under the X case at the moment concerning such matters. This legislation is supposed to provide clarification and tighten up things, as we are told, but I wonder if the witnesses agree that it does so.

The second question is a bit broader and comes back to the whole issue of treatments. A lot of us are hopeful and Dr. Montwill spoke in a very hopeful manner about addressing people who are in distress and seeing them through. That is very reassuring. We would all place a lot of significance and importance on the need for treatment. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to speak when Professor O'Keane was here. I would like to have put the question to her to clarify it, because she is the main proponent of this position. When one treats somebody with a mental illness or psychosis, that treatment is invoked under the psychiatric services. If a person does not have a psychiatric illness or psychosis, they are not getting treated.

However, Professor O'Keane is envisaging another situation which is that a woman is suicidal because of her pregnancy, does not have psychosis or a mental illness but is in a heightened state of distress. As a lay person, I would think that if a person has a mental illness or psychosis, that is obviously more quantifiable by the witnesses. As regards somebody who is very distressed but does not have a mental illness, can that person even be treated? We are all reassuring ourselves that people are going to get treated, but is there actually a treatment for such a person who does not have a mental illness? In that situation, and accepting what Professor O'Keane says, are the witnesses saying that this person is very upset and really believes - this is not about duping somebody or having them on - that they need to have a termination and therefore there is nothing the witnesses can do for them in that situation because there is no treatment where there is not a psychosis or a mental illness?

I would like to have some clarification. In my lay person's view, surely if I put myself in that boat, not having a psychosis or mental illness that I know of, and if I am in a heightened state because I am distressed because of an event, could the witnesses not talk me down? I would say that such people would be less likely to need suicide protection compared with a person with a mental illness. I would like to hear the witnesses comment on that.