Mr. Tony O?Connor:

Deputy Fitzpatrick’s questions related to matters that are outside the scope of the Bill, but I am open to correction in that regard. They were theoretical questions about civil actions and biological fathers which would only prompt me to again advocate that the committee encourage the Legislature to introduce legislation on assisted human reproduction. That is an area in which I have a particular interest and I take the opportunity to suggest that if the Deputy has an interest in it he should deal with it. I do not mean to be dismissive of his questions.

Senator Bacik raised a number of points and I hope to deal with all of them. I agree that the consent of the patient to go to a GP is important in the context of what we are talking about. I also accept her point that the term “pregnant woman” is used in other areas of the Bill and perhaps the term “patient” could be married with that. I acknowledge her expertise, particularly in the criminal law area. She is correct in stating, about head 19, that the phrase “It shall be an offence for a person to do any act with the intent to destroy unborn human life” is too broad and will not stand up to scrutiny. It needs better definition.

Dr. Mills has dealt with the broadness of the term “unborn”. I have had a discussion with him on the matter of whether it covers ectopic pregnancies. If one wishes to be clear then why not take the opportunity now to make sure it does not?

Deputy Naughten did not address a particular question to me, but I understand his concerns. The legislation has been awaited for 21 years and we must get on with it.

The practice is there and this reflects it.

Deputy Mitchell O'Connor asked about conscience. I reiterate my earlier remarks, the guide of the Medical Council requires doctors to disclose a conscientious objection to the patient. Senator van Turnhout raised this issue as well, so perhaps that message can be sent out. It should be addressed but it am not sure it is appropriate for primary legislation.