Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There is often a tendency - I concede that it is not confined to one or other perspective in this debate - to quote from experts and expertise which tend to support or validate the argument one is putting forward. That is perfectly allowable and is a legitimate form of debate. There is no difficulty about it. We are all inclined to reach for studies that tend to support the case we wish to make. What the Government must do, however - and, I would respectfully suggest, what the Oireachtas must ultimately do, having considered the broad sweep of evidence - is to come to a conclusion on the matter at hand. I make no criticism of Senators in observing that we have heard all the arguments at great length. I would not presume to say how this House should approach its business, but the Government certainly must have regard to more than one particular perspective.

Senator Rónán Mullen referred several times to doctors having particular ideologies. It may be reasonable to use that word but the reality is that one person's ideology is often matched with an ideology on the other side of the argument. It is not proper or prudent to rely on selective quotation; we must have regard to all the evidence and studies. The Minister referred yesterday to multidisciplinary, systematic and peer-reviewed studies, not just reaching to one or another study here or there but looking to see what is the broad sweep of opinion. In fairness to Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, she made the point that there is a great deal of controversy about this issue. Those of us who have occasion to follow the debate in the United States can observe that it is a hugely contentious topic in that country, as indeed it is elsewhere.

The study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, as referenced by the Minister yesterday, looked at a range of different studies, concluded that the evidence regarding the capacity for foetal pain is limited and indicated that foetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. The article observed that the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after the thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which usually occurs at around 29 or 30 weeks' gestation. The Minister went on to refer to the study in the United Kingdom undertaken by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists following recommendations by a House of Commons committee in 1997. That study, published in 2010, reviewed all the evidence, including the recently published literature. This is the type of broad-ranging review that is required. It is no good simply accessing a study that takes one particular approach. It is still possible to come to a particular conclusion on one or other side of the argument, but it should not be done based on a flow of studies or arguments from one particular perspective. I would respectfully suggest that this is not good law-making. It is not what we mean by evidence. When we talk about an evidence-based approach, it does not mean looking for a study that tends to support what we want to do. That is not my understanding of the proper marshalling of evidence in a legislative pursuit. It is about looking at all the evidence in the round. Senator Ivana Bacik made a fair point when she referred to the tendency to be overly reliant on medical opinion from the United States. The reality is that even in that country, medical opinion is not universally taking one particular perspective on this issue, as even a cursory look at the reporting will show.

Senator Paul Bradford is putting a negative characterisation on the position we have taken in this debate in claiming that we were never willing to accept amendments. After the heads of the Bill were published and debated in the committee hearings process and the legislation was brought to the Dáil, we made clear our willingness to consider amendments which improved the operation of the Bill. What has happened, however, is that we simply were not in a position to accept many of the amendments brought forward. There is no arguing with Members' rights to bring forward proposals; it is perfectly legitimate to do so. There can be no denial, however, that the majority of amendments - not all, perhaps, but certainly a lot of them - reflected colleagues' basic objection to section 9. I understand Senator Jim Walsh conceded that point last night; if I am wrong, he will correct me. Senators have adopted lots of different ways to attack that section, as is their right. That, essentially, is what most of the amendments have been about. The bottom line, however, is that the Government is not amenable to removing section 9. We will not agree to any amendments which seek, whether directly or indirectly, to undermine the operation of that section. That is our position and it is for the Seanad to make its own decisions.

I wish to make clear that the Government was open to amendments which might assist in improving the operation of the Bill. However, it was not interested in those which seek to drive a coach and four through its provisions. We are not prepared to accept such amendments. That is what we meant when we indicated that we would accept amendments which improved the operation of the legislation. For those reasons, it is not proposed to accept the amendments in this group.