Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, line 29, to delete “is ended” and substitute “may be lost”.

There are two interrelated problems with the legislation. One has been referred to by Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, among others, and concerns the lack of term limits. At a minimum evil, on foot of avoidable circumstances in situations provided for in section 9, a child at the cusp of viability, who is at viability or is later brought into the world in circumstances where, at best, the child may be extremely sick, the Minister said such children might have to be taken into care. We all accept that such an unfortunate outcome for a child is perfectly understandable and the process leading to it is perfectly legitimate, where doctors intervene to deal with the physical illness of the child's mother, and do so on the back of an assessment that the threat of suicide amounts to a risk of suicide, but it is unconscionable that should be allowed to happen to a child under the circumstances in section 9. I point out to Senator Gilroy that I talked about how a threat amounts to a risk to life but he can check the record on that point. The lack of term limits is one issue.

A related issue is whether there is a lack of protection for the child at cusp of viability or post-viability in the womb with regard to the procedures permitted. The Minister sought to reassure us when he said that if a viable baby is born, everything will be done to sustain the life of that baby. No one suggests at this point, although I have questions about how the eighth amendment might be interpreted in future cases, that care will not be taken once a child is alive having been delivered or brought out on foot of a procedure under section 9. However, there is a question about what ought to be done in terms of the child, what procedures the doctor is required to execute and whether the doctor is obliged to ensure a child at viability is protected in the course of the carrying out of a section 9 procedure or whether the obligation to preserve the life of the child arise only where the child emerges alive. That is at the core of the problem of the duty to the child prior to the procedure where the child is viable or near viability. It arises in two ways, one because the legislation does not confer a specific duty to protect the child in that situation and second because of the use of language and the word 'ended' in various sections of the Bill that I seek to amend.

I am speaking to amendments Nos. 13, 24-----