Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all our guest experts and specialists for their contributions this evening. It is reassuring to hear the last point about foetal maturity, with the ethos of care coming out strongly in terms of bringing both cherished patients to a safe place. I thank Dr. Walshe for the good work she does.

I have a question for Mr. Saunders. We heard earlier from Dr. Yolande Ferguson, one of the psychiatrists who appeared before the committee, who spoke about the way psychiatrists routinely defend their decisions in mental health tribunals. It struck me that given the far-reaching and fatal consequences for the unborn child of the decision to certify that a person is suicidal and that there is a real and substantial risk which can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy, would it not be appropriate that there should be a forum where such decisions would also be defended? That is arguably a more far-reaching consequence than something like detention, for example. That thought has struck me.

Turning it around, perhaps I have overlooked it but I do not see in Mr. Saunders' submission any comment on the fact that whereas a review is possible of the decision to refuse to certify that abortion would be lawful on the head 4 ground, there is no provision that any person or official would have the right to seek a review of the decision to permit a termination to go ahead. Again, given the far-reaching consequences for one constitutionally protected actor, does Mr. Saunders believe there should be, to use a phrase that became popular some years ago, parity of esteem and that there should be the possibility of a review in those situations?

I do not think Mr. Saunders made any comment on head 11, but head 11 essentially provides that records would be submitted to the Minister where a decision is made under head 4, or under any of the heads, permitting lawful termination of pregnancy. Again, with particular regard to head 4, it mentions that no notification shall give the name or address of the woman in respect of whom the termination was carried out. Everybody would agree that is right and proper, whatever people feel about the appropriateness of making any such certification under head 4. However, it goes on to state that the Freedom of Information Act shall not apply to any record under this head. Given that there would be no question of giving personal or identifying details, is that appropriate? Can Mr. Saunders think of any reason the Freedom of Information Act should not apply? If people are concerned about procedural abuses here, surely one important mechanism to allow us to know whether there is a procedural abuse is that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply. I would be grateful for any thoughts and insights Mr. Saunders has on that.