James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We are clarifying the law. I beg to differ. We have made that clear time and again. We are not conferring any new rights, nor are we taking any rights away from anyone. The European Court of Human Rights made it very clear that C was failed by this country because it was not clear to what she was entitled and how she could access it. We know from the medical profession that it is not clear to them what they are permitted to perform in terms of medical procedures. Our aim is to clarify the law as it exists, as bound by the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling in the X case and the A, B and C v. Ireland cases. I want to clarify that.

I do not want to leave anybody under a misapprehension. "Reasonable opinion" does mean what the Deputy set out, in terms of being best practice which is properly informed and in good faith. They all have meaning, in particular good faith, in legal terminology.

However, the Deputy's amendment contains a lot of words which are overly prescriptive. I do not want to give him the impression that I will revert to him with something like that. As he mentioned, we are working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General on making it very clear that there is a real and ever present onus on doctors to preserve the life of the unborn where at all possible.

There is a concern among people that because it is not stated throughout the Bill in a clear, consistent fashion that somehow it falls short of what will be required. I am putting the Deputy on notice that I will come back with an amendment to address that issue in the Bill. I cannot give the Deputy the precise details because it is still being worked on.

Having said that, our intention in this Bill is very clear, namely, to protect the life of mothers and, in so far as it is possible, also to protect the life of the unborn. We must all be careful in using words we might believe have the same meaning as others but which, in law, do not. A prescription to the effect that something can only be done if it is the only way to save the life of a woman would never be accepted in law because it could never be proved in law. A medical professional can, however, form a reasoned and reasonable opinion, and certify to that effect, that a particular procedure - which is to say a termination - is the only treatment available to avert the risk to the life of the woman. As I said, if alternative options are available to medical practitioners and they proceed with a termination without exploring those alternatives, they will be in breach of the legislation. I am confident that doctors will be extremely careful in arriving at such a decision because they know that the circumstances in which it is the only option are few and far between and, moreover, that all such instances will be of interest to people.