Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is what is required. I believe that most people would concur on that because the equal right to life is impossible to implement. It is a flawed article; I acknowledge that. However, we have laboured under a false illusion in this House and many Members going to vote tonight will labour under a false illusion by voting to retain this clause based on the X case judgment because it is wrong. I believe this will end up in the Supreme Court and I ask those who sit on that court to take cognisance of the fact that many of the Members who vote on this will do so on that basis.

I have a few points that are also important to raise with respect to the amendment. With respect to the psychiatrist, Deputy Creighton raised some issues to which the Minister will reply.

We can all selectively quote from the expert group but there are a few points I want to make. We all look at this through our own eyes. I realise on my left-hand side here there are many genuinely held views and, while I do not agree with them, I respect them. However, I have a difficulty with what is my own side of the House when matters are purported to be what they are not. On one simple issue, legislating for the X case is not in the programme for Government . How often must we repeat that? I have heard Minister after Minister come out and state it is. One should check the programme for Government. It is not in it.

With regard to the psychiatrists, virtually every psychiatrist who is in favour of the legislation happened to be at the hearings. We had a number who are opposed to it. When making his submission, Dr. McCarthy - this is important for historical record - stated that "we know that among our 864 members there will be a wide range of opinions with regard to the sensitive issue of abortion, reflecting the deep divisions in society ... about this issue.", and, therefore, the council of the college was confining its comments to the general scheme of the heads of Bill rather than any overall comment about abortion. It is important to remember that. When Dr. McCarthy gave his evidence, he did so in the context that the Bill was before him and it was how best to deal with the Bill. He made the same point at the earlier hearings in January.

With respect to the 864 members, that evidence was given on the Monday of the hearings held in May last. On the Friday, when the gynaecologists were giving evidence, Dr. Boylan, in his submission, referred to his understanding that the Council of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, the elected decision-making body representing more than 864 members, had made a single submission on behalf of all members. I note that Dr. John Sheehan, who is a psychiatrist and member of the college of psychiatrists, when he gave evidence on the Monday, had not seen the submission from the college of psychiatrists and was not familiar with it, and yet the gynaecologist who gave evidence on the previous Friday was. It is important to put that on the record.

During the evidence of the expert group, from which the Government widely quotes, on the day the three gynaecologists from the main hospitals appeared before the committee, two of them from Holles Street were asked if their evidence was personal or made on behalf of the institute of Holles Street. They did not answer, perhaps by default. If they had answered, they would not have been able to answer that it represented Holles Street because when evidence was given at the earlier hearings in January a number of gynaecologists from the greater Dublin area and elsewhere wrote into the committee. I do not know whether it is on the record of the hearings, but a written submission - an email was sent in and circulated - stated that they disagreed that there was a requirement for any legislation on this, be it threat to either the physical or mental health - I am not saying I agree with them - whereas when Dr. Sam Coulter-Smith was asked, and he had alluded to it in this speech, he stated his submission to the committee was based on his own views and the views of his consultant colleagues at the Rotunda following their consideration of the draft heads of Bill. For historically reasons, it is important to put that on the record.

While dealing with Dr. Coulter-Smith, I want to make a few points. I made them on Committee Stage, which was held down in the basement, a matter with which I disagreed, where 150 or so Members could not submit amendments which is unusual for such important legislation. I made a couple of points with which the Minister disagreed and I want to read them into the record. First, I have mentioned Dr. Coulter-Smith speaking on behalf of the institution. I will extract some of his quotes. He stated, "there is currently no available evidence to show that termination of pregnancy is a treatment for suicidal ideation or intent and, as obstetricians, we are required to provide and practice evidence-based treatment." He went on to elicit concerns they have about the gestational period, which was well covered by Deputy Shortall at the hearings. I will not go over that ground again. When the issue was put by Mr. Seán O'Rourke on "The Week in Politics" on Sunday night to the deputy leader of the Sinn Féin, she asked him not to present it in such fashion. I will not do so here, but that was the fashion that was presented by Dr. Coulter-Smith and these are the doctors who will have to implement this legislation. At the end, Dr. Coulter-Smith stated:

This outcome would be entirely iatrogenic and the responsibility of those clinicians who have agreed to be involved in the process. This is a source of serious concern for myself and my colleagues.

He also went on to state that it is the view of many of his colleagues:

that the inclusion of suicidality within the legislation may ... in the long term lead to an increased demand for termination in this country. We currently do not have any real understanding of how big that demand may be.

I am not one of those who state this legislation will open the floodgates. I would like to think it will not, but history has shown that in every other jurisdiction it has. I would like to think Ireland would be different. If we look back, Bourne, the gynaecologist in the 1930s in England, joined SPUC afterwards. Ms Norma McCorvey, who I have quoted here previously, the woman at the centre of the Roe v. Wade case, sought a judicial review of the decision in her case in the late 1990s based on what transpired. I think the term she used was that barristers legislated out of thin air for abortion in the United States, not dissimilar to what we are doing here following the X case.

On Friday last, when I put it to the gynaecologist in Portiucula, Ballinasloe, I stated that ultimately the implementation of this legislation will end up in front of him and I asked him what he would do. He stated that he would not implement it. He stated that he could not implement it because his whole medical well-being and medical ethical background is to do good and he would not do something that he believed to be bad and that was not evidence-based for good. The Minister will respond that there is a conscientious objector clause in the Bill that will cover that doctor, but it is poor legislation where one of its defences is that the Minister has the conscientious objector clause as a strength of the section in the Bill in the first place.

Perhaps this legislation will codify the law. We can use whatever terms we like, but it will change the practice and ethos in this country. I raised the issue of the six minors in the care of the HSE who, in so far as I can establish from the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, went abroad for abortions based on the X case decision on the suicide clause. Four of the cases went to court; two did not - I do not know why that differentiation existed. I asked the legitimate question: if this legislation is about saving women's lives, why did these minors in the care of the HSE have to go abroad for the treatment? I have not read "the Blacks", but the Minister stated one of the reasons was that this legislation would give clarity to those where there might have been uncertainty. Is he saying now that in future they will be able to get the terminations here at home? If so, to state that this legislation does not change the practice is inaccurate. We cannot have it both ways, and let us be honest about what is happening here.

History will show that the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland has failed the profession. I have got to admire the courage of individual psychiatrists. I understand 120 consultant psychiatrists made a submission stating that they would not participate in this process because it was not evidence-based. With respect to the 864 members who were circulated by the college of psychiatrists, it went to consultants, trainee psychiatrists, etc., my understanding is that somewhere in the region of 30 of them responded to the president of the college.

The submission on behalf of the council represented, in theory, the views of those 30 members. Some of the members who responded have claimed that the submission did not represent their views. I do not think, therefore, that it is built on very firm ground.

I wish to make two points in conclusion. Many Members have had difficulty with this legislation and I appreciate these difficulties. However, they have been given assurances from members of the Government - I do not mean to be flippant or cynical and I raised this point on Committee Stage - but I do not see anywhere in the definitions in the Bill the status of an assurance from the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health or the Attorney General. What is the legal basis of an assurance given by a Minister? In my view, it is no better than Willie the Crow's assurance; it makes no difference and has no legal status whatsoever. Let us be honest - if we want to include a ministerial assurance in the Bill, let us give it a status. Let us not hide behind such language.

I do not believe the sky will fall in tonight if this legislation is passed. Neither do I believe it will fall in tomorrow night. However, I do believe, as sure as night follows day, that there will be a time when people will come into this House and ask, "How did the Oireachtas of 10 July 2013 pass the suicide clause, which not based on a lack of knowledge?" We can talk about the Magdalen laundries and the abuse of children and hide behind the fact that we did not know. I want to state clearly that we do know, as the evidence is there in bucketfuls. They will ask how did we pass this legislation. I believe in life that I can generally find the answers to most questions, but I cannot understand how people will support this section. I will be pressing the amendment which goes to the core of the Bill. This provision is built on sand.

See this speech in context