Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will note the Chairman's distinction in that regard. My first question is to Dr. Craven. I am at a loss to understand his submission - I have read his submission as well as listening to his contribution - and the basis for his opposition to the heads of the Bill. His view is that it changes the current two patient duty, as he put it, but in my reading, and according to the experts we heard earlier, the heads of the Bill do nothing to change the current duty under Article 40.3.3o, which is a duty both to preserve the right to life of the unborn as far as practicable and to preserve the right to life of the pregnant woman. Head 1 of the Bill, which sets out the definition of "reasonable opinion", and head 19 specifically cover that requirement as well as the duty that others have referred to of any practitioner operating within the Bill to observe the terms of Article 40.3.3o, which remains in place. I cannot accept the basis for that submission.

Dr. Fletcher made some very thoughtful points in her submission about the issue of life. I ask her about heads 1 and 19 in particular. On head 1 she points out the difficulty with the definition of "unborn". My reading of the current definition is that it covers cases where, tragically, there is no longer foetal life, in other words, a foetus which is no longer alive. The witnesses from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told us that they would not regard that as an unborn and that they would regard it as miscarriage but my reading of the definition is that it is not sufficiently focused to exclude that, and that it would lead to the difficult and traumatic situation of a pregnant woman being forced to carry to term a foetus which she knows to be no longer alive. That is a traumatic thing to require any woman to do. Dr. Craven helpfully reminds us that section 58 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 refers to unborn, specifically stating "provided the child is subsequently born alive". That bears out the argument the witness is making. Clearly, there is litigation waiting to happen along the lines of the D case in an Irish court where a woman with a fatal foetal abnormality challenges the State for failing to provide her with the right to a termination.

On head 19, Dr. Fletcher made a very strong argument about the need not to criminalise the woman, or indeed the young girl, who attempts or carries out an abortion on herself, which is a real practical point because so many young women are importing abortion pills for use in this jurisdiction. I take her point, which was helpful of her to make.