Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am unsure whether I understand fully the rationale for this amendment, even though I have listened carefully to Senator Rónán Mullen. In the first instance, I will give a general response and will then seek to consider precisely what he has said in support of his amendment.

As was stated on Committee Stage, the Bill, as drafted, reflects the policy requirements to implement the judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland which pertains only to effective and accessible procedures being available. However, the change proposed by the Senator would have the effect of bringing a greater number of medical procedures under the Bill. For example, medical procedures which are currently carried out but which may pose a risk to the unborn such as amniocentesis or the administration of a general anaesthetic do not require legal certification, apart from clinical indication, and it would not be desirable for them to so do. There would at least be a risk that this would be the effect of what the Senator has proposed. However, having examined the words proposed by him, I am still somewhat at a loss as to what is the rationale for this proposal. I believe he will agree with me that irrespective of one's perspective on what is proposed in this legislation, the Bill must provide clarity with regard to what is protected. As a result, sections 7 to 9, inclusive, particularly sections 7 and 9, begin with the phrase "It shall be lawful". In addition, the phrase "it shall be lawful" appears on the second line of section 8. The Bill is making it clear what is lawful and regardless of whether one likes it, the clear intention of the sections is that it shall be lawful. Therefore, there must be clarity in respect of what is lawful.