Mr. William Prasifka:

I will answer Deputy Kelly's question on the Medical Council guidelines, which was asked in light of what we are currently saying about conscientious objection. There is a duty on objecting physicians to ensure continuity of care, but some of them are falling short of that standard. As theex post factoregulator in this area, the Medical Council is responsible for dealing with complaints that are made to it and for taking action when it becomes aware of cases in which people are falling short of the prevailing standards. The Act provides for the confidential process that must be followed when a complaint is made. It sets out a comprehensive procedure that must take place, and there has to be a full investigation. All procedural norms must be recognised. Due process and the constitutional rights of the practitioner have to be preserved. There must be a full process. The Medical Council is responsible for making a determination in the context of all the evidence that is presented. Each case is judged on its merits. As the regulator, we are in a difficult position. We do not want to prejudge any particular case. Every doctor is entitled to a full process and to an open procedure. The guidelines for conscientious objection and open disclosure specify that there is a strong duty to ensure continuity of care, to act in the best interests of patients and to provide full disclosure. If, having considered all the standards, we believe someone is falling short, the Medical Council can impose a list of sanctions, including advice, admonishment and censure and, in more severe cases, suspension and erasure, which means the doctor no longer has the right to practice. This is the role of the Medical Council as the ex post factoregulator. Ultimately, we have it within our jurisdiction, following full procedures and after confirmation by the High Court, to strike a doctor off the register.