Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health

General Scheme of Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2017: Discussion (Resumed)

9:00 am

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for sharing their experiences. When people come in who contribute to the best of their ability based on the facts as they know them, whether from professional or academic experience, anecdotal evidence or the fruit of research of many people, and it is not their full-time job, they deserve significant credit. I would not like to see a culture in the Oireachtas where people are challenged immediately and told what they have said is offensive. If they are not setting out to be offensive and are trying to depict certain realities which involve reflection on people's lived experience, then we, as Members of the Oireachtas, should be slow to jump down anybody's throat. I say that regardless of what point of view is being expressed. I have equal thanks to all the witnesses for what they have had to say here today.

With regard to other breaches of children's rights and their welfare in our society, the Chairman is right to point it out. Whether it is a priority issue is a matter of judgment. It is a separate question as to whether one allows another wrong, notwithstanding that there are already many wrongs in our society. I do not hold with whataboutery. That can always be used to divert from the discussion of an issue on its individual merits. That is what we have to do here. There is a prior question here of whether, as said earlier, an injustice relating to the sundering of relationships is involved in any of these procedures. If we are honest about that, we can then proceed to the next question. There may be an honest disagreement. Some may say there is an injustice and others may say there is not. There is a third point of view which is that there is an injustice but a person believes we should tolerate it. I would value such honesty.

I believe there are injustices here which are so significant that they do not justify permitting certain procedures. Other people would agree that there is an injustice towards the child but they still think the desire of the parent to receive treatment outweighs that. I understand that and at least we are having a debate on truthful terms. I hope that is how we can shape it going forward. In light of today's discussion and what our previous speaker said, there is a real need to interact at various levels. I have already mentioned how we need to hear, examine and interrogate what research is telling us and what it can and cannot tell us. Equally, we need to do so with people who have been through that experience, regardless of people's point of view, just as it is important to hear from children conceived through these processes who feel they have been wronged and that is not being acknowledged. We should also look at this comparatively so that it is not just me saying that I think Sweden is going in the other direction or that there was a decision in the Spanish constitutional court. Let us look at what is happening internationally.

Deputy O'Connell and others have talked about how it will happen anyway if it goes underground. This committee issued a unanimous report advocating prohibition of medicinal cannabis due to unintended consequences and the fact that it would undermine other legislation on patient safety. An argument here is that it will go underground anyway. That is not, in and of itself, an argument against prohibitive legislation. I do not want to put words in Professor Madden's mouth but there was an acknowledgement that while it might be the case that anonymous donation is prohibited under Irish law and within the Irish jurisdiction, there is nothing to prevent people from travelling to avail of assisted human reproduction involving an anonymous donation. That is an example of it happening underground. We need to acknowledge that the fact that things happen underground or outside our control is no reason for us not to legislate one way or the other. It raises my question, which goes back to what Ms Keegan responded to, which is whether we should at least discourage that much. If we have an architecture allowing assisted human reproduction, including surrogacy, although it has not gone through the Oireachtas yet and I hope other arguments will prevail, would people agree that going abroad to avail of surrogacy through anonymous donation should be discouraged? What do people think of that?

Professor Madden may have left the room when I pointed to my dissatisfaction with the obligation being on donors to keep the register updated with relevant information, for example, if they are diagnosed with health conditions. I think that will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Surely the obligation should be on clinics and providers to be legally responsible for having all relevant information? It could be set out in legislation or a statutory instrument that they would be legally responsible to maintain contact with donors for the purposes of securing important relevant information, including information on health issues and so on. I would appreciate the witnesses' view on that and the related question. I understand there is nothing in the scheme to allow donor-conceived children to trace their genetic parents or half-siblings easily. Should there be something in the scheme that makes it easier for donor-conceived children to trace their genetic kin, whether in Ireland or overseas?

I do not think this is an issue we will get to today but it may be an issue for another day's reflection. All of this presumes activity which is destructive of human embryos in one way or another, with how assisted human reproduction is practised. I and others have problems with that. I think many people would have problems with the "save your sibling" concept which has been present in Britain for many years, where embryos are created for the purposes of treating an illness or condition. I think Baroness O'Cathain spoke very critically of that in the British House of Lords.

It is probably an area at which we will need to look on another day. It is a very controversial aspect of the whole issue of human endeavour. While it is not covered by the Bill, it is something about which we need to have a debate.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.