Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for joining us online today. I appreciate they are Zooming in from different time zones. We appreciate their expertise in this field, including their research. It is important that we have an idea of the international landscape we are operating in while we navigate our way through this complex topic. Two themes came up in today's opening statements that I would like to explore a little. Senator Mullen already touched on the first, namely Professor Preston's idea of a panel, which we have discussed a little at this committee. The second is Professor White's idea about ethics versus facts and values versus evidence, which is relevant to today's debate.

I like the panel perspective because it eliminates, as Professor McLeod referred to, the trauma sometimes involved from a practitioner's perspective. It would remove conscientious objection as a proactive thing a medic has to declare and would provide consistency around decision making. I would like to hear the witnesses' views from a consistency and decision-making perspective, whether that in itself would be a natural increase in safeguards and would remove the risk of a slippery slope.

Ethics versus facts and values versus evidence are issues I struggle with in this committee.

On Second Stage of this Bill, which established this committee, I voted in favour based on my ethics, my values and my desire for freedom of choice and freedom of bodily autonomy. However, on Committee Stage, it is all about facts and evidence. Over the past number of months we have had very conflicting evidence. We have had anecdotal evidence, which is often a good sound bite but which does not deliver the depth of what research provides, which is not necessarily as sexy but it is important for us as a committee to have a grasp of.

Professor White has done 20 years of research in this field. I would like to hear from all the panelists around the safeguards of the panel. However, could Professor White summarise 20 years, as easy as it may be in 90 seconds or so, to give us those highlights as to what he has gleaned and what we as a committee need to take as takeaways from that research?