David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The very fact that we are now looking at an amendment which might take some time to be crafted is a vindication of what we have been saying, which is that we need to go through this legislation properly and thoroughly and get it right. I welcome the fact that there has been movement on this issue. This makes sense because it places a legal obligation on the clinician to inform a woman who is diagnosed with cancer - which would involve trauma for any woman, or for any patient for that matter - that there is now this entitlement. This is an important amendment and we would support it. If it takes until January to do it, then the women, and patients generally, would say it would be better to get this right rather than rushing it through now. My view is that if this is what it takes, this is what we should do. It is unsatisfactory that we are in this situation and that I have just two minutes to respond. We are all limited in our time because this is Report Stage.

To return to the anonymised audit, it seems we are not going to agree on this. The Minister said that up to 50% of women may not want to know if there is a discordant reading. He may be correct; I do not know. I imagine it may be higher in Ireland because of what happened in CervicalCheck. Whatever the percentage, there are some women who may not want to know if there is a discordant reading. For this reason, it would be wrong to have an unanonymised system. The opposite of this, however, concerns the question of what happens in the case of the 50% of women who want to know. We are not giving them a choice other than through this patient-initiated system. There is no automatic obligation on the system to inform women if there is a discordant reading. I have spoken to the Minister about what I think is a logical system. We can create whatever system we think is best for us, including a bespoke system that creates a choice to opt in or to opt out. If there is a discordant reading and the system comes across it, for whatever reason, whether as part of a look-back, an audit or a lab coming across an error in any other part of its work, the question asked would be whether the patient wishes to be informed. This would give the women a choice and it would have been a better system. It is regrettable that the Minister is not minded to accept this suggestion. However, I acknowledge that the amendment the Minister is proposing is one we would support.

See this speech in context