Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

How long a child with a so-called fatal foetal abnormality might survive after birth is unknown, in the extreme, if one thinks of conditions such as Edwards syndrome and others. As to whether there is an obligation to maintain a pregnancy where a child has actually died, frankly I find that very surprising and such would not be my understanding of the law. Perhaps others would care to comment.

Ms McDonagh spoke about medicalising a decision that is not medical. Is that a fundamental problem with the proposed legislation? Is it almost ethical bad faith? We are not talking about cases of mental health where I believe it has been well established to everybody's satisfaction that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation. That would imply it is not a treatment for suicidal ideation that arises in a mental health difficulty. Is it Ms McDonagh's position, therefore, that psychiatrists are being drawn into a role that is not really a role for a doctor and that there is thereby a kind of ethical unsoundness at the heart of what this Bill presents?

Do any of the witnesses have a view on whether it is legally necessary to go this route in order to satisfy our obligations under the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Is there an alternative path? Part of the rhetoric around the Government's proposal has been that this action is necessary but we heard that disputed in earlier sessions today.

What is the view of the witnesses as to whether there should be a review? Is there a disproportionality about the fact that the refusal to certify a termination under head 4 is susceptible to a review at the request of the mother, while there appears to be no legitimate contradictor or possibility that somebody else might invoke a review, given the final and fatal consequences for the unborn in that case?