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

I thank the panel. In Professor Binchy's presentation, he stated: "In some cases the very existence of the child may be the basis of the suicidal ideation". He also stated that, in such circumstances, "the goal must be to terminate the life of the child".

I must ask Professor Binchy whose goal he means because such an intent will not be served by this Bill. Not one of the health professionals who have attended and presented at these committee hearings would serve such a goal. Irrespective of their range of strongly held views given in evidence, all are cognisant of and accept the fact that the constitutional protections of Article 40.3.3° still stand and are unchallenged by this Bill. There is a subtext to much of this. I am an Opposition spokesperson on health yet I do not believe for one moment that such a goal, as Professor Binchy so describes it, forms any part of what the Government is seeking to address in this legislation.

I refer to Dr. Maria Cahill's contribution, specifically to point 4 of her executive summary. She seeks to make the case that there is an inequality in the treatment of a woman presenting with mental illness as against that of a woman presenting who is suicidal. I am concerned by the point made in the opening of point 4, on page 2 of Dr. Cahill's presentation. She describes the right to equality of women who are treated under head 4 as "jeopardised" because, under head 4, a woman officially certified as being suicidal will be offered no psychiatric treatment of any kind for her life-threatening condition. Dr. Cahill goes on to describe this as discrimination as, of course, it would be but this has not featured anywhere in all the engagement we have had. Throughout yesterday we spoke with people from the psychiatric profession, including those who specialise in the perinatal area, and on Friday we spoke with obstetricians. According to all the care professionals there is no way that such a woman would not be treated, supported and given due cognisance of her circumstances. I find it difficult to understand how Dr. Cahill can suggest she would be offered no treatment of any kind.

The clock is ticking and my three minutes is less time than others have had. I refer to Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness's point, in which she regretted that some of the historical situation relating to the X case had come into the presentations in this Chamber. I wish to thank Mr. Callanan, and also Mrs. Justice McGuinness for her written contribution, because we have been subjected, including this morning, to the continued assertion that all of this is based on a poor judgment and flawed decision of the Supreme Court 21 years ago. I thank Mr. Callanan again and Mrs. Justice McGuinness their submissions today which properly clarify that is not the case.