Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank each of the panel for coming forward and giving evidence today. Professor Binchy and Dr. Cahill expressed dissatisfaction with the X case judgment and referenced Cosma v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In the X case a psychologist report was produced while in the case of Cosma v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform there were two psychiatric reports produced. The legislation we are discussing would necessitate three medical reports. The argument is that by having legislation where there must be evidence from three experts, there is clarification of the issue. Professor Binchy seems to be very concerned that the X case was a wrong judgment. Is the argument not that there is nothing preventing the Supreme Court from getting it wrong again and even widening the interpretation of what was intended by Article 40.3.3°? Dr. Cahill states in the submission that the "courts have determined, therefore, that a medical opinion on the existence of a real and substantial risk is not the same as legal determination of that criterion" and that they are free to depart from the opinion of a medical expert. Is that not more reason for legislation?

I have raised a point with all the people who have come before us over the past two days. This is the matter of people who are under 18 and the lack of any reference to them in the heads of the Bill. In what way should that be clarified so as to deal with expectant mothers who are under 18? If we go forward without legislation, there is a proposition for guidelines and regulations. I asked the question this morning but it was not answered by those four people so will the witnesses tell me under what legislation can we bring in those guidelines and regulations?