Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the panel for their expertise. I would like to raise head 12 on conscientious objection, because it has come up several times and all of the experts have testified to their appreciation of the right to a conscientious objection. However, it seems it has always been seen from the perspective of the doctor or the consultant. Does a patient have a right to know if their medical practitioner has a conscientious objection? We have seen it from one perspective.

With regard to heads 2 and 4, the majority of governing and regulatory bodies have proposed that the two heads be merged. Yesterday, for example, we heard that while in psychiatry there may be no biological markers, there are clinical signs and symptoms, and there was clear testimony to that fact. I would welcome the panel's views on why they would agree or not agree with the proposal that the two heads would be merged.

I note on head 19, which deals with the scope of the offence, that Dr. Mills' comments are in line with comments that have been made by me and others over recent days. It is an issue we must look at.

Several experts have raised with us the silence of the Bill when it comes to children, to girls, in particular Dr. Maeve Doyle's testimony on children who are in care because of an abusive situation. It greatly troubles me that we will have a Bill that will totally ignore this small cohort of children who are voiceless and, yet again, may be left voiceless. Is this an issue that we could or should address within the parameters we have?