Results 6,561-6,580 of 20,831 for speaker:David Norris

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: And myself.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: I support Senator Jillian van Turnhout's amendment. It seems important that we have a concept of best interpretation and a definition of it. It should take into account the history and past expressed wishes of a patient who may now no longer be in a position to express them. We should take into account assisted methods of communication, be it nodding, by squeezing a hand or whatever else....

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: Yes. Deirdre de Búrca was her name.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: The two amendments hang together very clearly. The first one is a definition and I cannot see why it should be rejected. It states that "chemical restraint" is the intentional use of medication to control or modify a person’s behaviour or to ensure a patient is compliant" - in other words, to dose them down. It is an emergency fire department response to the situation. Importantly,...

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: This would be pretty dreadful.I have experience from 30 or 40 years ago of visiting the then Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, where I witnessed staff going around with trays of drugs and allowing people pick up handfuls of them. Those patients were zombies: they were out of their skulls. I do not think this practice continues and would be very surprised if it did. These amendments deal...

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: Am I correct in assuming that chemical restraint is referred to in the Bill as it stands, even without these amendments?

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: Am I correct in assuming that "chemical restraint" exists within the body of the Bill as a phrase?

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: That is what I thought but it seems extraordinary that there is no definition for same. Whatever about amendments Nos. 2, 4 or 5, surely to goodness there should be the acceptance of a definition? If the Minister of State does not like our definition, she should present one of her own. It is astonishing that a major term employed in the Bill should not be defined. Everything else is...

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: I do not mind at all. I have no problem with the Minister of State turning away and taking advice, although I know that other Senators do not like it. I firmly believe that there must be a definition in the Bill. A definition is needed and I cannot emphasise that enough.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: I ask the Minister of State to give us the page number.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: What page and what line?

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: Thank you.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: The difficulty with that is that it is not in the definitions section.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: It should be in the definitions and the definition provided for in the amendment is better. First, it is a definition. Second, it is very clear and third, it introduces the fact that the drugs being administered are not necessary for a medical condition. That is absent from the subsection to which the Minister of State referred, which is not a definition. I know that sometimes in Bills...

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: Yes.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: I asked earlier if the phrase "chemical restraint" occurs in the Bill. It does not occur in this section so I assume it occurs elsewhere in the Bill.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: That is the information I was given. This subsection does not refer to chemical restraint or define same. I note that the Minister of State is nodding so I am taking that to mean that the phrase does occur elsewhere in the Bill. Her case is substantially weakened by virtue of the fact that subsection (9) of section 38 begins thus: "For the purposes of this section". That limits it to this...

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: No, that is not correct. What is the point, then, in saying "For the purposes of this section"? I know it is a nicety but legal points are niceties.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: It says, "For the purposes of this section".I do see a certain amount of agreement from the advisers. No, there is vigorous head-shaking.

Seanad: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Committee Stage (9 Dec 2015)

David Norris: The Minister of State cannot get away from the fact that it states “for the purpose of this section”.