Michael Harty (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, this amendment refers to parental consent for girls under the age 16. The reality is that when a young girl like that presents to a GP - it would most likely be a GP in this situation because it is going to be early pregnancy - the GP has a certain number of obligations that are already enshrined in law. First, if a girl under the age of 16 is pregnant, that essentially is statutory rape and there is an obligation on the GP to inform Tusla and most likely to inform the Garda. That is what is required for safety reasons. I know Deputy Coppinger discussed here and at the committee the fact that a parent may be the perpetrator of the pregnancy. That may be the case but it is probably a minority rather than a majority. Nevertheless, it is significant. If a girl under the age of 16 who is pregnant presents to a doctor, the doctor has an obligation to make a report to Tusla and the Garda.

I understand that under the general data protection regulation, GDPR, it is not permitted to discuss the medical condition of a child over the age of 13 with their parent. I am not sure if that is the case but if a pregnancy is involved, the obligation to report trumps the GDPR. I do not think any mother would thank her GP for prescribing abortive medication to a girl under 16 without consulting at least one parent. In many jurisdictions, there is an obligation to inform both parents, while in many others, there is an obligation to inform at least one parent. There are only a few jurisdictions that do not require the doctor to inform a parent.

This is a very important topic to discuss and thrash out here because it is a requirement that if a girl under 16 is pregnant, the law has been broken in some form or other. If it was between two consenting children under the age of 16, the so-called Romeo and Juliet clause kicks in. If the male partner, for want of a better word, is over 16 and the girl is under 16, that is a crime. It could constitute child abuse and it certainly needs to be reported. GPs already have a substantial obligation under the law to make reports to statutory bodies and probably to a parent. I cannot imagine a GP prescribing abortive medication to a young girl under 16 and not consulting her parents provided the GP is happy the parent was not involved in the pregnancy, which could happen in a minority of cases.

A GP has to use his or her judgment.

One of the foundations of medical ethics is that the person has autonomy. Under the Gillick judgment, which relates specifically to the prescription of contraceptives, where a girl under the age of 16 presents looking for contraceptives, her autonomy can trump parental consent in some circumstances. That Gillick competence could be transferred to termination of pregnancy. A pregnant girl could possibly be prescribed the medication without her parents' consent if she exactly understood the situation and was competent and mature. The Gillick competence is a derogation for contraception that could possibly transfer over to termination of pregnancy.

This amendment is too prescriptive. It places an obligation on the parents to be informed and this trumps all else. It also applies time restrictions depending on what section of the legislation is being invoked. Consent is important, but it has to be done in a structured way within the safeguards that are already present in medical ethics and the law to ensure that, if somebody under the age of 16 presents pregnant, the matter is not kept quiet. There has to be a triggering of events. The amendment, well intended as it is, will not advance that any further.

See this speech in context