Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I wish to focus on three areas. In his opening remarks on head 4, Mr. Brady said we should not be under any illusions that we are creating new law. Law emerges in many forms - through statute law, court interpretation, precedent, etc. Section 21.1 of the current Medical Council guidelines states:

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide.

My reading of that is that the current law, to which medical practitioners are obliged to have regard, states that there is a legal entitlement to a termination on the grounds of suicide. Is that not the current law? If it is, is it true to hold the view that we are creating new law?

Ms Simons stated that to proceed with head 4 is effectively to abandon the two-patient approach.

Does she see any contradiction in her holding that view and her earlier praise of the contribution made yesterday by Dr. Janice Walshe, consultant medical oncologist, who clearly stated she felt that the operation of this legislation would not in any way adversely impact on her obligation to pursue the two-patient approach? It appears to me that to praise Dr. Walshe on the one hand and on the other not have reference to what she clearly stated in terms of the impact of the legislation is slightly contradictory. I would welcome if she could address this.

On head 6, the debate on the issue of capacity has been informative. While that debate dwelled on the issue of under-age minors, such as Miss X, and diminished capacity in terms of vindicating or accessing rights, I would like to discuss the issue of capacity in a slightly different context. Head 6 makes provision for the pregnant mother who may in her original application have been denied a termination on the grounds that she is suicidal to access an appeals process. I do not have a difficulty with that. However, in terms of the legal capacity to vindicate one's rights as outlined in Article 40.3.3° in relation to the unborn in that situation, is it not a clear and flagrant deficit in terms of the heads of Bill as drafted that there is no authorised officer of the State empowered to vindicate the rights of the unborn in a situation where the woman is granted permission to terminate the pregnancy? Do the witnesses see any reason, in terms of the content of Article 40.3.3° and due regard to the equal right to life, an authorised officer of the State should be empowered to vindicate the rights of the unborn?