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

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 9, line 13, after “consult” to insert “with appropriate urgency,”.

Amendments Nos. 43 and 76 seek to achieve the same outcome. They want to instill a sense of urgency in terms of the medical practitioners seeking to engage with a woman's consent with her general practitioner. Any reading of the requirements on the medical practitioners in respect of a section 7 certification vis-à-vis the risk of loss of life from physical illness, or a section 9 certification in respect of the risk of loss of life from suicide, will show that in the situation where the medical practitioners are concerned about the risk of physical illness or the risk of loss of life from suicide, there is no requirement to act with what I would view as appropriate haste. By inserting the words "with appropriate urgency" after the word "consult", section 7(3) would then read:

If practicable, at least one of the medical practitioners referred to in subsection (1)(a) shall, with the pregnant woman's agreement, consult, with appropriate urgency, with the woman's general practitioner (if any) for the purposes of obtaining information...

The same formula applies to section 9(4). Where the risk of loss of life is from suicide, I believe there is a need to emphasise the importance of due haste and of acting without any undue delay, and at times acting in the interest of the woman's health that may be in real and substantial risk.

I hope that Members and the Minister recognise that the language used in the Bill in both of these sections does not of itself compel the medical practitioners to act with due haste. While we can reasonably assume that they would do so in all cases, I think it is a requirement of us to indicate not only to medical practitioners what is expected of them, but as the dual purpose is to give clarity to medical practitioners and certainty to women in pregnancy, the insertion of the words "appropriate urgency" serves both purposes. It provides clarity to medical practitioners and certainty to the women who may find themselves in situations of risk that no time will be lost in proceeding to acquire all of the relevant information if that is her express wish in respect of consultation with her general practitioner.

In this grouping, amendments Nos. 104 and 107 appear in my name and I wish to speak briefly to each of those. In amendment No. 104, I seek to reduce the number of days where the review committee would carry out its assessment of the woman's case on appeal. There is currently a provision in the Bill for bringing together a review committee to assess any referred refusal of a section 7 or section 9 certification within three days.

A further seven days are provided to carry out deliberations, decide on an informed opinion and give a decision. Seven days is a long time in the circumstances that could and, I believe, will present. Accordingly, such a period is unreasonable and a shorter period would be more appropriate. These are highly qualified medical professionals who will avail of the opportunity, following three days of being together, to immediately embark on a full assessment of the case, including a full examination of the woman and a review of the salient information in her case, her appeal and circumstances. Four days is adequate time for the work they will be required to undertake. Accordingly, I commend amendment No. 104 to the House.

Amendment No. 137 states: "In page 14, line 32, after “shall” to insert “immediately”." This amendment pertains to the issue of conscientious objection. We must recognise that the language employed in this section refers specifically to a medical practitioner who has a conscientious objection. Section 17(3) provides that such a person "shall make such arrangements for the transfer of care of the pregnant woman concerned as may be necessary to enable the woman to avail of the medical procedure concerned". The language does not demonstrate any compunction on the part of the medical practitioner to act with the urgency the situation might require. For the sake of medical practitioners and child bearing women - whether now or in the future - for whom this may be a matter of life of death, it is important to add the word "immediately" after "shall". The Bill is not aimed solely at providing the necessary clarity and certainty for medical practitioners. It also has responsibility for conveying certainty to women who may find themselves in these situations. There can be no toleration of delay. If a person has a conscientious objection, he or she should state it and deal with the matter immediately. Although it may be correct in practice, I hope in all cases, to assume that the response will be immediate, if there is the possibility of urgency not applying in every case, a strong argument can be made for clarifying what is required by inserting the word "immediately" as proposed. I appeal to the House to accept the validity of the case I have presented on amendments Nos. 43 and 76 to provide for appropriate urgency, amendment No. 104 in respect of the number of days the review committee will be given to deliberate on cases referred to it and amendment No. 137 in respect of the requirement for immediacy in referrals by medical practitioners with a conscientious objection.

See this speech in context