John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

When we descend to this clownish behaviour on the part of my esteemed friend on the far side of the House, we know his argument is beaten.

There are two problems with section 9, if we do not accept suicide as a legitimate reason. One is that we have different attitudes to mental illness. Some people do state mental illness, including suicide, is a very serious problem. Others have a different view. There might be a second argument, which is that we do not trust our doctors. We think there are pro-life and pro-choice doctors, which, of course, raises the appalling vista that the medical profession is not based on sound clinical practice but on some ideology perhaps shared by Senator Jim Walsh. These are the issues we need to examine.

I appreciate the indulgence shown to me by the Chair. If we acknowledge suicide and mental illness as presenting a real risk and if there is evidence, or none - I might be generous enough to say this - section 20 of the Bill offers protection against the ideologically driven doctor in the review to be laid before the Houses. If there is an ideologically driven doctor who suddenly ignores all clinical risk, clinical and professional good practice, the Hippocratic oath, the views of his or her colleagues and peers and just about everyone else because he or she is absolutely adamant that people should be aborted, every year before 30 June we will see the pattern emerging in the review. That should allay the fears about the ideologically driven doctor. The other reason for opposing section 9 is to deny the existence of suicide as a cause of real distress and to deny the existence of mental illness.