Seanad debates

Thursday, 18 July 2013

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:15 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Minister will regard Senator Burke's point of order as very helpful.

I dealt with the Minister's objection that the incorporation or use of the words "may be" would somehow encompass other procedures. Bizarrely, he chose to cite amniocentesis but did not illustrate what harm such unintended inclusivity would do. It should be remembered that we are discussing rendering lawful a procedure that may result in the unborn child's life ending. The reason for inserting the words "may be" is to cover circumstances in which the unborn child's life does not end. There would not be any actual mischief even if, as the Minister claimed, using these words would include cases such as amniocentesis, even if the latter was not the offence. If that were to be the case, there would be no harm done. It is, however, ridiculous to suggest it would include such things. The most basic understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation - the Attorney General certainly has such an understanding - would allow a court to understand that when one is interpreting legislation, one does not only interpret matters literally, certainly not if to do so would lead to an absurdity. Various rules of statutory interpretation include, for example, what is called the purposive approach where the courts examine what is the intent of legislation and what it is designed to achieve. Clearly, the amendment is designed to achieve the protection - at this point it is not a duty - of doctors who might carry out a procedure which did not result in the death of the child. As the Minister pretends and insists, albeit without reassuring legislative support, this is supposedly being done under section 9. There are supposed to be cases where a child might be brought out alive and its life preserved because it has reached a point of viability. However, the Minister does not confer any protection in the relevant section 9 for a doctor in such circumstances because the only thing being made lawful is a procedure that ends the life of the child. There is a massive lacuna there.

To respond to Senator Thomas Byrne-----

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.