Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps not here, although to some extent, perhaps in one case here. However, in this group of amendments that is largely not the case. However, I believe I am entitled to draw a distinction between the two approaches.

As for these amendments, I will respond to amendment No. 16 first, which refers to the wording in the Bill on reasonable opinion and proposes to delete the phrase "as far as practicable" from the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment. As was pointed out on Committee Stage, the words "as far as practicable" used in the wording of the Bill are taken directly from Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. I understand a distinction has been made by Senator Walsh and earlier by Senator Mullen to which I will return, but as colleagues are aware, these words appear in plain terms in Article 40.3.3°, which states "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". It is entirely proper that, when one seeks to set out the appropriate wording in the Bill in respect of the need to preserve unborn life, the qualification that is placed on that need should be a qualification that comes from the Constitution.

When Senator Walsh quoted the Irish version Article of 40.3.3°, he did not emphasise in the way I suggested the very last words, which read "agus ráthaíonn fós na cearta sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é." We understand "sa mhéid gur féidir é" to mean "as best one can". It is a qualification that is actually necessary because in neither our formation or that proposed by the Senators is there an absolute requirement. Senator Mullen, in his amendment, uses the wording, "being an opinion which respects the equal right to life of the unborn, and which has regard to the duty to deliver the viable unborn alive where practicable". Senators Mullen and Walsh, therefore, concede that there is a necessity to qualify their words. The words are not absolute but qualified with the term "where practicable", which implies "sa mhéid gur féidir é" or "as best one can". Nobody is saying the requirement is absolute; everybody is saying it must be qualified. Therefore, there is no great distance between us in the use of the terminology. It is perhaps clearer in Irish than English.

In reference to the requirement in the amendment regarding an ultrasound scan, the Minister stated on Committee Stage he does not propose to dictate in primary legislation the practice of obstetrics in the way advocated.

With regard to changing the wording on reasonable opinion proposed in the other amendments in the group, the relevant sections provide that a termination can be carried out only when the medical practitioners have formed a reasonable opinion that the risk "can only be averted by carrying out that medical procedure". We are very familiar with this and have gone over it time and again.

Although I understood Senator Mullen to be saying he is concerned the requirements do not seem to extend to the doctor carrying out the procedure and to inhere only in the certifying personnel, I must point out, with respect, that his amendments and those of Senator Bradford refer to the certifying personnel and not the doctor carrying out the procedure.