Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

I pay tribute to Deputy Timmins for bringing forward this draft legislation. I understand his primary motivation relates to the issue of sudden cardiac arrest. I am very much aware of his work in trying to provide defibrillators in the community. My mother is trying to set up a charity in the Lucan area and has spoken to a number of individuals who praise Deputy Timmins's contribution in this area. Whatever happens to this Bill, and it seems the Government is intent on voting it down rather than amending it, there is a need for some form of State funding to enable sports clubs and community groups throughout the State to provide defibrillators. It should not be the case that people must organise charitable events to ensure the issue of sudden cardiac arrest is dealt with to some degree.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, should examine this issue carefully. As Deputy Timmins mentioned, sudden cardiac arrest can happen to anybody, including young and elderly people, those who may have a genetic predisposition, persons who suffer a blow while playing sport, or as a consequence of many other environmental conditions. This is the original motivation for the Bill. However, it includes a number of other pertinent issues.

In the context of my education portfolio, for example, it has come to my attention that even those qualified in first aid skills within schools are now advised not to come to the aid of children for insurance reasons. The example is often given of little Johnny who cuts his knee while at school. Most teachers in the majority of schools will apply some cotton wool and water and that usually suffices. If the wound is a little deeper, however, but not so much as requires stitches, the average teacher will not apply a plaster because of the risk of being sued by parents and others. This is a dangerous situation.

Whatever happens to this legislation, something must be done to ensure teachers qualified in first aid are able to come to the assistance of pupils without the fear of being sued. Another example is where a child is choking. If a teacher performs the Heimlich manoeuvre on a child and gets him or her to eject the offending object, the child's teeth may break or he or she may suffer strain or crack a rib. We can bet our bottom dollar that certain unscrupulous parents would take advantage of that and try to sue the teacher for what he or she has done to save their child's life. A Bill such as this is necessary to ensure that the good samaritans in society, those who try to help out of the kindness of their hearts rather than the other good people, such as doctors, who work for fees, do not suffer any liability.

I wish to speak about the comments made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. Amid the pedantic buffoonery of his contribution, he gave four or five examples of one doctor having a particular responsibility and another who is off-duty and comes onto the case having a separate responsibility. He created quite a few fatuous and — I would contend, although I am not a legal expert — possibly inaccurate statements. He said that the Bill in effect creates an obligation to act to save somebody unless it would be grossly negligent not to do so. I cannot see where that comes from or upon what advice it may be based. Has he consulted the Attorney General on the Bill or is he merely talking about previous conversations?

The Minister said he had considered introducing differential negligence tests in the past but, following consultation with the Attorney General, had decided the issue was so complicated it might be better to leave matters as they are. This is a fair comment. However, arguments about a doctor on duty in a hospital who encounters an injured person who has been brought to the hospital in the back of a car and a doctor who is off duty and on the way home when he or she encounters a different scene blur the waters to some degree. If the Minister is serious about tackling the legal issues involved, why will he not amend the Bill, bring it through the various Stages and put forward what he considers a correct wording?

The sentiments of the Bill relate chiefly to the importance of ensuring that people in the community who operate defibrillators and teachers who try to ensure children are not left with lasting scars have protection in doing what they believe is best to save a person's life or prevent him or her developing a serious illness. I commend the Bill and urge the Minister and his colleagues to bring it forward at least and deal with any inaccuracies that may be contained therein.

See this speech in context