Dr. Simon Mills:

As with Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Brady and Ms Simons, there is a limit to the number of questions that I can answer in the time available to me. I will start with Deputy Terence Flanagan's questions. He raised an interesting issue pertaining to conscientious objection by institutions. There is a tension in the Bill between the conscientious objection granted to individuals and the assertion that institutions are not entitled to conscientious objections. If no institution is entitled to a conscientious objection, what happens if every individual in that institution exercises a conscientious objection? It could possibly lead to the bizarre scenario of an add-on question at job interviews along the lines of how the applicant feels about the protection of life during pregnancy Bill 2013. That is not necessarily an absolute tension and there may be flexibility in terms of the provision of medical services but it strikes me as a tension none the less. The Deputy and I did not agree about much during on the last occasion we discussed these issues but I think we can agree that head 12 creates a certain tension.

However, I disagree with Deputy Flanagan on the question of suicide and termination. I do not accept the premise of his question on the indication for prescribing a treatment that increases the rate of suicide. The evidence to support that assertion is simply not available because the group of women we are discussing for the purpose of this Bill have not been studied in the way suggested by the Deputy. His question does not bear the weight of its closing premise.

A problem that has bedevilled this issue is the assumption that because the area has not been thoroughly studied - the difficulties in doing so have been identified repeatedly - the ensuing absence of evidence can be flipped on its head to be used as evidence of absence. What witnesses have in fact said is that we are discussing a tiny cohort of women for whom the threat of suicide in pregnancy is a problem and the number of those for whom the question of termination might arise. The presumption that because this tiny group has not been studied, no conclusions should be made about them and they should be excluded from the protection of the Constitution, which is the logical conclusion of what is proposed, is a stunning assertion.

Senator Healy Eames asked about my reference to the exclusion of head 4. She seemed to believe I was making some sort of concession that suicide would end up being excluded. That is not what I meant when I said "excluded". I meant excluded in the sense of being merged with head 2, which is a very different matter.

This brings me to something Mr. Brady said. He opened his contribution by stating that the law is being changed when it comes to head 4. In his closing contribution he changed his position to state that the change in the law relates to the way we are legislating for the 1861 Act.