Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

If this was a sitting of a medicines licensing board and if the witnesses before us with an ethics background were debating the registering of a particular drug for use and transmission to the general public, we would want to satisfy ourselves that it is safe, appropriate and useful. If we reviewed the drug on a trial basis over ten, 15 or 20 years - in a sense, like the X case - and it was the view not just of most people but of everybody that it was not suitable, I believe it would not be licensed.

With reference to head 4 - the rest of the legislation could be passed in a half day in the Oireachtas - there is the proposal of the concept that abortion is a suitable treatment for suicide, notwithstanding the fact that every presenter this week, last January and over the course of the debate has said the opposite. What is the response of witnesses to that? Is it ethical to put into law a treatment we know is not a treatment at all?

I thank Dr. Fletcher for the contribution and I very much appreciate where she is coming from philosophically on the topic. She mentioned what was described as a troubling mistrust of women with suicidal ideation. We have been asked by the Chairman not to use emotive language and I do not believe the problem to be the mistrust of women with suicidal ideation; we are proposing the possible mistreatment of women with suicidal ideation. Will the witness comment on that?

I concur with Senator Fidelma Healy Eames on the proposed new definitions of "personhood", the "unborn" and difficulties which may flow from that. It is somewhat cold to state people do not have a future as persons. It almost sounds Orwellian and it is frightening language. That is why some of us are so fearful of this legislation, as we are afraid of the scary thoughts it may bring us. That is why we must be careful.

I thank all the witnesses as they gave very interesting and worthwhile presentations. We can agree to disagree on some issues.