Dr. Eilionóir Flynn:

I will take this question and Ms de Bhailís can feel free to add to it if I leave anything out. I thank the Deputy for that question. We recognise that in the 2015 Act under section 85(6) on the advanced healthcare directives there is a provision which was necessitated at the time of the 2015 Act by the continued existence at that time of the eighth amendment to the Constitution. It states:

Where a directive-maker lacks capacity and is pregnant, but...does not specifically state whether or not she intended a specific refusal of treatment set out in the directive to apply if she were pregnant...the refusal of treatment would have a deleterious effect on the unborn, there shall be a presumption that treatment shall be provided or continued.

Similarly, there is a provision that even where the directive-maker has explicitly said he or she wants the refusal to apply where they are pregnant, even if it "would have a deleterious effect on the unborn", that cannot be respected without further application to the High Court to determine the validity of the refusal of treatment. These sections are simply unnecessary and can be deleted from the legislation. As far as we understand they were there because of the eighth amendment but they have no further relevance so they should not continue to be there. We are disappointed to see that they were not included in the list of sections to be deleted in the present heads of Bill.