Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have no intention of doing so, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. These are my first comments on Report Stage. I hope that there will be no need to revisit those issues because latitude will be given to Senators to express themselves on the issues as they see fit, and according to their mandate.

I support Senator Walsh's amendment. My concern is about abortion techniques to be used and the related issue of pain killing as arose with Committee Stage amendments, and will arise again. The Minister has fallen back on his line that he does not want to be prescriptive. It makes a lot of sense not to be prescriptive where to be prescriptive might interfere with a doctor's ability to do a doctor's good work. That cannot be what we are talking about here. We are talking about the avoidance of destructive procedures. It is welcome that the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated:

The destructive methods described for second trimester termination of pregnancy are not currently carried out in this jurisdiction, nor will they be in the future. The procedure currently practised in the Republic of Ireland is induction of labour using medication called prostaglandins. This will not change as a result of the enactment of this legislation. If a viable foetus is delivered, all efforts are made to preserve its life where possible.

Presumably, the statement should have said "his or her life where possible". That is all very well. The institute does not make law and it does not, ultimately, decide what could be lawful, or not. It cannot even tie its own hands into the future and has no authority to do so. It is slightly less than reassuring when it says that the procedures to be carried out "will not change as a result of the enactment of this legislation." Nobody is saying that it will. We are saying that the legislation, as it currently stands, leaves open the possibility that the procedures could change in a way that would not be desirable from the point of view of respecting the dignity of the unborn child in this situation.

I shall raise an issue that I have raised before, namely, the use of intracardiac potassium chloride injection into the heart muscle for late-term abortion to termination of pregnancy at 22 weeks onwards, as recommended by, among other people, Dr. Arulkumaran in his scholarly article that I quoted on Committee Stage. This is the gentleman who was bizarrely put in charge of the HSE's investigation into the tragic death of the late Savita Halappanavar.

Perhaps the Minister for Health can assist me, and us, by saying whether he regards the injection as being permissible under the legislation should the relevant doctor or medical organisations decide that it was appropriate for some reason. Does he regard the injection as part of a surgical or medical procedure? What is intended by an intracardiac injection? I would find it helpful to know the information. It is not inappropriate of me to ask my questions given the profound nature or tromchúiseach of this legislation.

It is not enough to say we will not tie doctors' hands. We should not tie doctors' hands where they are doing good work but doctors' sometimes do bad things and they certainly do so in abortion jurisdictions. There is no doubt but that we have a culture which is changing. Culture always changes and will change into the future. Therefore, it is very much the responsibility of legislators to shape the circumstances in which medical treatments are carried out.

I support the amendment put forward by Senators Walsh and Wilson and would be very grateful if the Minister would respond because my fear is that by not being prescriptive when one should be, one ends up with a scoundrel's charter and that must be prevented. I would be grateful for a response on the potassium chloride issue.