Dr. Edward Mathews:

There would not have been a change over time in the INMO position. There are very strongly held views across the spectrum on this issue. Some views are very binary, at one end of the spectrum or the other, and then there are discussion points in the middle. Deputy Kenny will have seen that, as part of our submission, we tried to represent all our members. To assist the committee, if there is a decision to change the law, we have set out what needs to done to be balanced and to protect our members and service provision.

The Deputy may have noted that our submission refers to the importance of exploring, with health professionals, the views and objections they may have in order that they can reach a position of deciding whether they have a conscientious objection. That is essential because in other circumstances people engaged in such a process and some decided, in the context that it arose, that they did not have a conscientious objection while some decided that they did have an objection. The point is to allow them to do so because if a decision is made to go ahead with this, it will be new in terms of practice, and also to facilitate that in order that, as a colleague mentioned in an online contribution, services can be organised in a way that both protects the professional and allows the service to be provided.