Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not mind which of my amendments Nos. 10 or 45 the Minister might choose to accept. Indeed I am open to persuasion that neither is necessary because the existing provisions are clear. I am anxious, however, to clarify my intent in these proposals. Amendment No. 45 proposes the insertion of a new subsection (7) as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in this section every attempt shall be made to explore with the woman, by means of counselling and support, alternatives to carrying out the medical procedure referred to in subsection (1).”.

The objective here is merely to ensure that every effort would be made to explore all avenues other than a termination. It is not my intention to be prescriptive in terms of how clinicians should do their job. It is simply about requiring them to explore every possible avenue, which accounts for the reference to counselling and support. It recognises that there may be alternatives for a woman in crisis, and I am merely suggesting that clinicians should be obliged to explore those alternatives.

Amendment No. 45 also proposes the insertion of a new subsection (6) as follows: "Where the unborn may be potentially viable outside the womb, every effort must be made to sustain its life after delivery." The Minister has said that this requirement is already covered in the Bill and it would be overly prescriptive to include it here. I do not agree that the provision is overly prescriptive or would impose on the clinician's capacity to form a reasonable opinion. It is merely restating in the legislation what is set out in Article 40.3.3°. If the legal advice is that this provision is not necessary, that is fine. My intention, however, is not to be prescriptive in terms of how doctors arrive at a reasoned opinion but rather to ensure they are obligated to have the full information before forming that opinion.