Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I also raise concerns about these two amendments. AHR professionals have expressed serious concern about these two amendments and the removal of the term “progressive disorders” from the Bill.

It is accepted that such conditions are rare. However, because of rapid advances in genetics and other fields, fertility preservation is possible. I have also been advised of several such cases in respect of adolescents who are living with various conditions such as Turner syndrome, galactosemia and what is known as BPES.

AHR professionals also argue that the proposed addition of the phrase “irreversible impairment to the child's fertility” does not account for unknowns. It is pointed out that in the field it is well known and accepted that, for example, some children's ovarian and testicular functions can recover following chemotherapy, but this is unpredictable. Also, according to the professionals, in boys there is a lower threshold for freezing sperm because it is relatively simple and non-invasive. I remain to be convinced that such medical practices should be restricted in primary legislation. Again, given the pace of change in this area, surely the Minister’s concerns could have been addressed by way of statutory instrument, rather than placing such restrictions in primary legislation. The thinking among people who have expertise in this area is that, given the pace of change in the area of science, we must ensure the legislation is future-proofed and allows for medical specialties to determine what is medically appropriate and achievable in each case, rather than setting it in stone at this point in time.

See this speech in context