Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will start by thanking the Chairman for accommodating me as a substitute member of the joint committee, for his engagement prior to the hearings with regard to people coming in and for his subsequent chairing of the joint committee, which was good. That said, the process was very rushed. While that was not the Chairman's fault, it was rushed both for members and for those presenting, as some of the latter have noted subsequently. Despite this, however, it has been quite productive.

The question all members will ask themselves is what they have learned from these hearings. Before the proceedings began, for example, members knew the A, B and C v. Ireland case in the European Court of Human Rights did not involve suicide. They learned that the circumstances of the C case were covered adequately by current medical practice on the treatment of cancer patients and this point was stated here emphatically. They also learned, which they probably knew, that the European Court of Human Rights required not legislation but clarity surrounding the treatment to which Miss C was entitled. They learned an interesting point today in respect of the X case, which is that where an argument in the Supreme Court or any court is conceded, it loses its evidential value and therefore, it only binds the parties in that particular case. This was the incontrovertible evidence presented to members today.

A number of those who presented today stated we are not required to legislate in this instance. I took particular note of the comments of the eminent former Supreme Court judge, Mrs. Justice McGuinness, who stated that over the past 21 years, Governments did not act unconstitutionally by not legislating. Members also learned, although they probably knew it from the previous hearings, that it is not possible to predict suicide. A British study demonstrated that it is only correct in 3% of cases, with 97% being false positives. Emphatically, members learned from all psychiatrists appearing before the joint committee, be they pro-choice or pro-life, that abortion is not a treatment for suicide. I believe that was a unanimous view.

Members did learn something that presents a challenge to the Government, namely, that where a woman presents with a crisis pregnancy and in distress seeking an abortion and is not mentally ill, she is entitled to refuse other treatments such as psychotherapy or home visits that might be offered to her. If she still refuses, she then will be entitled to a certification to allow her to have an abortion. Because of her distress, she will perceive her only solution to be a termination of the life of the baby. This presents a significant challenge and from what I have heard in recent days, I believe that what the Bill is most likely to deal with under head 4 are cases of suicidal intent not associated with mental illness. I believe, as stated by a number of witnesses, that both in law and in practice, this is a highly significant change from the current position.

Members also learned, which certainly has concerned me and I expect most members of the joint committee, the psychiatric profession is divided and more or less polarised on the issue. If, as has been suggested, pro-life psychiatrists do not participate or the selection process is skewed or both, my honest opinion is that Ireland will have a liberal abortion regime within a short period. As the debate progresses, I genuinely hope the Government will pay attention to and act on the evidence presented generously to the joint committee over the past three days by those who appeared before it. This did not happen on foot of the hearings last January and in this instance, I appeal to the Government to pay close attention to the points made, which summarise much of the evidence that came before members.