Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The standard of reasonableness for the purpose of this legislation is defined in the legislation. With respect, that is the point which has been missed. The Bill does not require that an opinion be reasonable and in good faith. Rather, it tells us what "reasonable" means for the purpose of this legislation. It is not an objective test but a good faith test which is entirely subjective. As I said in my opening comments, it is extremely difficult to make a finding of mala fides. What I am proposing here as being desirable and necessary given the life and death issues at stake is a more objective test which would require that the certification be jointly certified and have regard to the relevant clinical evidence. In other words, if people have their evidence right, we need not worry about good faith or bad faith because they will have to do what is right according to the evidence. That is safer from the point of view of protecting all the lives involved.

Senator Colm Burke referred to medical negligence and the likelihood or otherwise of litigation. The point here is that the victim will not be around to litigate, which is why we have to ensure there is a safe and objective test. I already pointed out that the clinical grounds are not actually mentioned, although they are referenced in another section.

On the point raised by Senator David Cullinane, there is no contradiction between having problems with a good faith test and also saying one has a problem with, as he put it, the decision-making capacity of some medical professionals. To be clear on this, we all trust women and we all trust doctors. Sometimes, however, there are doctors who perhaps cannot be trusted and that is why we have legislation. The whole problem with the abortion on grounds of suicide provision is that it opens up what many of us see as the likelihood of an abortion-on-request scenario, as we set out on Second Stage. The problem is that not all doctors believe they have a duty of care to the unborn. In that sense, I have to say in all honesty that I do not trust all doctors. I do not trust those doctors who came into this House and said abortion should be available as a matter of choice. I do not see how those doctors can be trusted to protect unborn children under this legislation. I do not think it makes me a bad person to say there are doctors out there who cannot be trusted in this regard. As I said yesterday, there are doctors in Britain trained to save lives as obstetricians who are skilled in the destruction of life as abortionists. That is the reality of the Western world.

It is a little unfair to say to those of us who have concerns about this legislation that we do not trust certain people. The whole point of good legislation is that one does not have to rely on trust. If we trusted everybody we would all be angels and there would be no need for legislation at all. Let us make credible arguments and be fair to each other. I certainly trust doctors. Sadly, I do not think it is possible to trust all doctors. That is probably why we have a fitness to practise committee at the Medical Council and why there are occasionally cases of breach of good practice which sometimes result in practitioners being struck off the medical register. That is the world we are living in, not a perfect world in which everybody acts ethically. It is why we need law and it is why I am proposing the tightening up of this unfortunate legislation.