Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin opposed the proposal to sit until 5 a.m., not because we did not want additional time to discuss the Bill but because the time arrangement is unreasonable. The Bill should not be debated by ever-tiring heads. The Government should have rescheduled for tomorrow and Friday, if necessary, whatever time was required. Fresher, clearer contributions were what we hoped for.

The greater number of Irish people realise and accept that this is not a black and white issue nor indeed is it a them-and-us issue. Accordingly, it should not be a question of a them-and-us debate between one body of opinion strongly held and another body of opinion equally strongly held, with no prospect of a meeting of minds. Those who argue for the greater number of amendments in the grouping, most of which seek the deletion of section 9, do not have a monopoly on care and conscience. It is because I care and exercise my conscience that I have concluded that I must act as legislator and face up to the fact that certain circumstances can and do present.

I noted in an earlier contribution a Member's concluding remarks. The question was posed as to why the Bill provided for the termination of pregnancy as the only treatment for those unfortunate women confronted with suicidal thoughts or ideation while pregnant or as a result of the pregnancy. There is a simple answer. It does not so provide. That is not what the Bill says. Section 9(1)(a)(ii) refers to the reasonable opinion of three medical practitioners, two of whom will be highly qualified psychiatrists, that a risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure. What does the word "only" tell us? The practitioners have a responsibility to reach a conclusion using their professional judgment as fully trained and registered psychiatrists who have assessed, explored and employed every other reasonable, realistic approach in their address of those cases that will present.

This is not the only action provided for. It is the last action provided for when all of the other avenues of exploration and address have been properly explored, employed and exhausted.

In the case of the risk of loss of life from suicide, it is worth reminding the House again that this is already the law. This is what is already acknowledged practice in the guidelines to all medical practitioners. If one has any doubt, he or she should check section 21.1 of the Irish Medical Council guidelines. How many such terminations due to the risk of loss of life from suicide have taken place over the number years since that has been the legal case? Such is the legal position and it is what the guidelines of the obstetricians' collective professional body, the Irish Medical Council - which is the amalgam of all medical practitioners - clearly indicate. One of the obstetricians who appeared before the committee hearings in January and May indicated there could be no doubt about this aspect, not as is provided for here in terms of further opinion to ensure certainty. It is interesting to note that despite this, not one of the obstetricians who appeared before those committee hearings had a personal experience as an obstetrician of ending a pregnancy following on such an assessment. They acknowledged in the course of their contribution that there were - there was some little difference of opinion - perhaps two or three cases that they knew of going back over many years, and each of those are very sad in their own situation.

No doubt the medical practitioners involved in determining those interventions are the self-same medical practitioners who will continue to operate by the terms of this legislation on its passage and who will employ the highest professional standards within their respective disciplines in medicine, by which I mean across the board without distinction in terms of physical illness address or mental illness address. I have confidence in them and in their ability to do so. We must recognise that first and foremost in the minds of all practitioners is their obligation to address the need of the pregnant woman and the need to preserve the life of the unborn child. There should be no doubt that such would be their approach and that such is their professional commitment.

The Bill provides for review and for reporting so that the Minister of the day is fully aware of the incidence in any of the sections, be it section 7 certification, section 8 certification or section 9 certification. On the matter of any irregular incidents, I will accept when the Minister states - he and I are not noted to be in regular agreement - that he would act appropriately if any concerns presented in terms of incidents.

My conclusion on section 9 is that it is an integral and necessary part of the Bill. I would appeal to Members because, make no mistake about it, it is not an easy path, either for me and for many of my colleagues and friends across all political opinion in this Chamber, to come to these sets of judgments. We do so, not on the basis of any of the personal concerns and views we have held but as legislators recognising that we have a bounden responsibility to judge each piece of legislation as to it being fit for purpose. I believe that the Bill is exactly that - fit for purposes and worthy of our support. This is a time for all legislators to step up to the plate and lift their heads from the sands.

See this speech in context