John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend Senators MacSharry and Cullinane for proposing this amendment, which I will be supporting. There were 400 newly diagnosed cases of malignant melanoma in Ireland in 1998. That number had increased dramatically to 800 by 2008 and to 1,100 by 2010. Other kinds of skin cancer which are less life-threatening, but are still life-threatening and can certainly be disfiguring, and the treatment of which can pose health consequences, are also increasing. There is a critical need for us to tackle this problem, for example by means of an aggressive education campaign targeted at those who are most vulnerable.
I would like to explain why I support this Bill. I acknowledge that people have a right to make bad choices about their own health. People have the right to sit in the sun and sizzle and burn if they wish. However, we have an obligation to inform them off the foolhardiness of that position. Adults have the right to go tanning parlours if they wish. However, no one has the right to profit commercially from deliberately causing someone else to be exposed to a carcinogenic influence. This is the fundamental logic we have used in our attempt to get Governments in Europe to commit to a long-term policy of criminalising the for-profit commercial sale of tobacco products, or indeed any commerce in such products. No civil or human right to engage in such activity exists. If one wants to grow tobacco in one's back garden and roll it up for one's own use, that is fine.
No one has a God-given or constitutional right, or any kind of right, to profit from giving someone an addictive carcinogen. I believe the same logic applies in this case. No business has a right to do something which is clearly without health benefit and is clearly very dangerous for someone who is very vulnerable. To approach it from a psychological perspective, there is a literature which suggests the possibility that there is a low level of addiction to suntanning. There are people who suspend their own logical faculties and make bad decisions because they have become addicted to something that somebody else encouraged them to use for their own profit.
At the moment, the only professional interaction that a foolhardy, bad, poorly, pale-skinned, red-haired and freckled Irish person has when he or she is deciding whether to go to a tanning parlour is the advice that he or she receives from the fellow who is flogging the time on the bed and therefore has a dog in the fight. This legislation would at least impose an obligation on such a person to see a doctor and get medical advice about it. One of the best ways of dealing with this is for people who have had melanoma to start suing tanning parlours. That is the way to do it. I hope people will start doing that some day. If someone has a note from his or her doctor saying that he or she has been cautioned explicitly about the specific and quantifiable risks to health associated with doing something as foolish as this for somebody else's profit, that might well provide a degree of indemnity and immunity against prosecution. It is something I believe the industry should embrace.
I will support this amendment eagerly. I suggest to my colleagues that they should press it today because it is important. I believe it enhances a good Bill. As the Minister knows, I am not sure where the Bill was for a while. I raised this matter on the Adjournment two terms ago because I feel very strongly about it. I see an awful lot of malignant melanoma in my practice. I see an awful lot of unbelievable tragedies that result from this disease, which disproportionately affects young people and young middle-aged people. We need to do everything in our power to eliminate it. This is a step along the way.