Seanad debates

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Gender Recognition Bill 2014: Report and Final Stages

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Katherine ZapponeKatherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:



In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“ “general medical practitioner” means a medical practitioner who is registered in the Specialist Division of the register of medical practitioners under the medical speciality of “General Practice” or in the General Division of the register of medical practitioners;”.
I will address my remarks to amendments Nos. 4 and 6 in particular. I guess I do believe that politics is the art of compromise. As hard as it is at times, I acknowledge compromise must happen and that is what these amendments are when it comes to the inclusion of general medical practitioner in the definition of the primary treating practitioner when it comes to the people who are there as a medical presence to confirm the identify of the change of trans people. These two amendments are a compromise. We have all spoken at different points about how the ideal or best Bill would be that we would not require any kind of a medical presence and that it would be enough for a statutory declaration by the person involved that they have chosen to transition and that is who they understand themselves to be.

It might be helpful to say a few words more about what that might look like if we had a closer acknowledgement of the self-determination of trans people embedded in our law. The Bill that I put forward with my colleagues, Senators van Turnhout and Mac Conghail, a while ago and in which I was assisted in writing by FLAC, TENI and other academics included an example of a kind of declaration or what a person would say to fulfil requirements to get a gender recognition certificate. While I am not going to read it all, it is important to hear the kinds of words that person would say:
I, ________________, make an oath, do solemnly and sincerely declare and say as follows:

1. It is my settled and solemn intention, formed after careful consideration, to live permanently as a person of the male or female gender.

2. I wish to be treated for all purposes as a person of the male or female gender.

3. I want to have these details set out in this statutory declaration recorded in the gender recognition legislation.

4. I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1938 and pursuant to this Act.
I presume the Minister of State and the officials, under ministerial direction, will compile something similar to what I have outlined in terms of declaring a statutory intent for the change.

As we know, with the Bill as it stands there will be a medical presence, which is a compromise. We have heard the arguments. We all want the Bill to go through and we accept that element, with the greatest respect. I have the greatest respect for the argument made by the Minister of State. Why can a GP to whom trans people go not be one of the primary treating medical practitioners? We usually go first to a GP for professional support to improve our mental or physical well-being. I am deeply grateful that the Government has accepted Senator Moloney's amendment about medical evaluation in this respect, as I am to Senator Bacik and others on the Government side for agreeing to make it consistent throughout the Bill. If it is not a medical evaluation, however, and instead some form of straightforward one-page statement that the medical person goes through with the trans person to confirm their identity as they understand it, I do not understand why a GP cannot be included in the list along with endocrinologists and psychiatrists. That is why these amendments have been resubmitted. The Minister of State has indicated that if we were to include general practitioners, they would need to be consulted before being included. I think it is reasonable to say that and to require same.

As the Minister of State will also be aware, late this afternoon we both received a copy of a letter that was written to the Tánaiste by Mr. Kieran Ryan, CEO, Irish College of General Practitioners on these amendments. It reads:
Re : Definition of 'primary treating medical practitioner' in the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Dear Tanaiste,

The ICGP is aware that there are proposed amendments to this bill relating to the definition of "primary treating medical practitioner".

The ICGP would encourage you to add General Practitioner to the definition of "primary treating medical practitioner" for the purposes of Certification of an individual's gender transition. GPs are more than capable and qualified to fulfil the certification duties under this piece of legislation. GPs will most likely be familiar with the circumstances of the applicant and are well placed to verify an individual's medical transition. GPs are often the first point of contact for transgender people seeking healthcare and monitor the medical transition after transgender people have engaged in specialist services. This would be of great benefit to applicants as they are more likely to have had interactions and engagements with a GP in their local area.

We hope you can take the above position into consideration in the preparation of the Bill. Should you have any queries then please do not hesitate to contact us.
I feel a great hope with regard to that statement that came from the Irish College of General Practitioners. It is a tremendous statement of affirmation that supports the advocacy and desire of the trans community. I hold out great hope that the Minister of State may consider these amendments in that regard. The sentiments expressed in the letter are extraordinary and is a great example to set. It is wonderful to hear such support come from the Irish College of General Practitioners.

In our conversations about this matter the Minister of State has said the Government would need to consult other professional organisations such as the IMO about, for example, what it might be willing to say.Unfortunately, however, they have not yet been consulted. Would it be possible for them to be consulted prior to the Bill going through the Dáil, although maybe not this evening? I wish to hear the Minister of State's response in that regard. I hope he will also welcome, with me, that statement from the Irish College of General Practitioners.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.