Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I address this question to Dr. Craven. During the course of the past 40 years the legislative and ethical issues dealing with women's reproductive concerns have had a fairly messy history in this country, to put it mildly. We have struggled with issues such as who should be given the contraceptive pill and, in legislating for the morning-after pill, what the definition is of the unborn. We had the same concerns about when human life supposedly begins when legislating for the implantation of the Mirena coil. We still live in a country where there is no legislation governing either in vitro fertilisation or stem cell research. As Dr. Craven noted, we can order RU486, an abortifacient tablet, over the Internet, with no legislation intervening. The individuals who would be ordering such medications are the most vulnerable people of the cohort of women we are discussing. At very best, they see doctors and the wider administration of the Government, the churches, or whatever as adversarial, at worst they believe we are trying to criminalise them. As a member of the legal profession, does Dr. Craven agree that perhaps we should not have punitive legislation that would set down how many years a person should be imprisoned for if, for one reason or another, she was using this medication? That question is also addressed to Dr. Fletcher.

That question could also be addressed to Dr. Fletcher. There is a need to separate heads 2 and 4 because physical illness is much more subjective than mental concerns. I am a doctor and I understand the concerns about the enforcement of the Mental Health Act and its use as it stands.

In the course of these hearings I have had a fair idea of where everybody stood ideologically and if they were pro-choice or pro-life. I am a bit in the dark when it comes to the current witnesses, and none has been a member of an organisation that could be described as strongly pro-life or pro-choice. Is that correct?