Mr. Paul Brady:

In case there was any misunderstanding, I said certify as opposed to prescribe and not certify simply because the request was made; that is obviously not what Professor O'Keane said. However, she did refer to circumstances where there was no underlying mental illness and other expert witnesses have said that they believed that the majority of women presenting under head 4 would be women with no mental illness, which makes this a real issue in terms of what that will mean in practice.

To answer the second question as to whether this Bill is legislating for the killing of babies, as Deputy Byrne put it, I would say that by moving the test for real and substantial risk to the grounds of suicidality and away from physical issues, if the woman's threat is based on the existence of the child and the continuation of the pregnancy, whereby she says that if she has to give birth to the child she will kill herself, then what that woman is looking for is an abortion and not some other form of treatment. In that sense, therefore, it can only be a fair reading that the Bill legislates as the Deputy has suggested.

In response to Deputy Troy, the position is that there is a presumption being stamped here that the legislature will create a statutory pathway, a formal legislative framework, whereby one can access a termination of unborn life on grounds of suicidality. That would seem to suggest that the Legislature regards that as a valid proposition, a worthwhile end and something that needs to be done and in that sense, it does create such a presumption.

I have mislaid my note on Senator Walsh's question but will respond to it later, if I may.