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

In his summary, Dr. Craven made it clear that he does not believe the Bill to be fit for purpose and stated that it fails to reflect the ethical and legal imperatives and to recognise certain things, is philosophically confused, involves an old-fashioned approach, fails to reflect proper ethical-legal considerations and it is fundamentally illogical.

Dr. Craven's point in No. 39, immediately before his summary, is that if this Bill passes there can be no conscientious objection to ethical, legally permissible practice. In the event that the Bill does pass, is Dr. Craven arguing that there can be no provision for conscientious objection? We cannot have it every way. We are likely to have to face the passage of legislation of some form. Even though Dr. Craven has strong views I am sure that many who would share his position would be anxious that conscientious objection would indeed be provided for.

I thank Dr. Fletcher for her contribution. In respect of recommendation No. 3, Dr. Fletcher refers to removing the discriminatory distinction between the evidence requirements for a risk to life from a threat of self-destruction and a risk to life from a threat of physical illness. Do I understand from this that Dr. Fletcher is supporting a view already articulated here today, yesterday and on Friday that heads 2 and 4 be brought under a single heading? Would that be the direct translation of what Dr. Fletcher is arguing for?

I thank Ms McDonagh for her contribution as well. Reference was made to there being no requirement to examine the patient. Ms McDonagh refers to the provision that the specialist should examine the patient and then goes on to state, under the same heads, that the woman's general practitioner shall be consulted. However, that sentence concludes with "where practicable". The "shall" is not an absolute, it may not always be a possible situation. That represents exactitude in language. Ms McDonagh is very clear about the importance of that and its understanding.

Ms McDonagh stated that surely in the case of suicide risk an equally robust regime should apply. This was in the context of examination of the patient. Does Ms McDonagh have concerns that examination of the patient is not properly provided for in respect of medical circumstances as against suicidiality? Would Ms McDonagh like to elaborate on that? Generally, we would be of one mind that we want to see the patient examined, that the determination of the professionals is based on the very best opinion that they can arrive at. One would think that would include an examination of the patient.