Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a question for Dr. Yuill. I completely accept and understand the idea that when providing certain healthcare, there is an issue of how we then begin to discriminate within that healthcare in terms of who can and cannot access it. In an abstract way I think about that and what that means, but then in a practical way I think about all the policies and legislative frameworks we have to do that in many other areas of healthcare with regard to a person's needs, prognosis or diagnosis. Dr. Yuill said there is no comparison to, say, the repeal of the eighth amendment. I understand the distinction he is making but we as policymakers set those regulatory frameworks around when, how, who and what period. Looking at BreastCheck, there are many women in Ireland who get breast cancer diagnosis between the ages of 20 and 24 but yet the State policy is that we do not actually do breast screening until a certain age. There are already parameters in which legislators create frameworks around things. It is like there are philosophical and existential questions versus trying to take those questions and put them into implementable frameworks where we have to make moral choices. I do not think anybody wants to make dying or ending life early the most moral thing you can do or to say someone is a really moral person if they do that. Maybe the choice is not between deciding between what is moral and what is not. We are looking at what is practically acceptable for a person or an individual in a given time. Can Dr. Yuill see other situations or scenarios where the State already legislates parameters of healthcare?

That is something that exists in terms of how people access healthcare.