Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is to be known as "Jake's amendment". On 20 March 2013, shortly after being prescribed the antidepressant, Prozac, 14 year old Jake McGill Lynch ended his own life using a firearm. Jake, who was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, was given the antidepressant drug despite research stating that it has no benefit for children with Asperger's syndrome and despite the emerging evidence of harm. The coroner in Jake's case rejected a suicide verdict for Jake. This was due to an email that Jake wrote 24 hours before he took his own life, through no fault of his own. He was writing to a friend and he conveyed his concerns about the medication he was taking, and that he was feeling worse because of it. He said he felt drugged out of his mind and was trying to suppress the bad feelings. Based on those words that were brought to the coroner's attention, the coroner said that this child was not in his right mind and that he would not elaborate on the medication. He asked Jake's parents what verdict they would like, open or narrative. They chose an open verdict. None of the options suited, but it did not really matter to them as long as it was not a verdict of suicide. Their belief is that Jake was not in his right mind due to medication. Jake had no history or diagnosis of depression, suicide ideation or self-harm. That is confirmed by the prescribing psychiatrist.

I welcome Jake's parents, Stephanie and John, to the Visitors Gallery, along with their long-time friends and campaigners, Leonie and Tony. They have worked tirelessly to bring attention to this issue and to campaign for a change to the law. They have said previously that they are trying to make the difference they believe Jake would have made in the world. I think it is fair to say they should be absolutely applauded on making such a real difference on his behalf with this legislation.

Their request is simple. They want the Coroners Act to be amended in order that a coroner can return a verdict of iatrogenic - medically induced - suicide where such is the case. Of course, the coroner will take into consideration the evidence before him or her. This option should be available. It is an issue that must be highlighted. A verdict of suicide, returned in accordance with the provisions of the 1962 Act, must be differentiated from a verdict of iatrogenic suicide. By definition, iatrogenic suicide is the ending of one's own life where the effect of medical treatment undertaken by the deceased, including any prescribed medication, is the primary cause of such an action.

We know that grief is a complicated and harrowing emotion. I can only imagine how much more compounded and how many extra layers of grief are added when the correct cause of death is not attributed to the lost loved one. While this legislation can never relieve Jake's parents and the many others of their pain, it can give them recognition in a formal sense of what happened to their son.

In the midst of their grief, Jake's parents have come to understand that their personal tragedy is one that has been shared by thousands of families whose loved ones have died as a result of antidepressant-induced suicide. Over ten years ago, warnings first began that children in particular needed to be closely monitored when put on certain drugs. For example, a review in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicinein 2004 stated:

Evidence from many sources confirms that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) commonly cause or exacerbate a wide range of abnormal mental and behavioural conditions. ... Each of these reactions can worsen the individual's mental condition and can result in suicidality.

There have been more recent studies in the same area with similar results.

It is not the intention of this Bill to scaremonger about, prescribe or influence medical treatment. It is wholly the responsibility of medical professionals, scientists and the Department of Health to advise, monitor and manage health care. The intention of this amending legislation is simply to give this real issue the place it rightly deserves within our legislative process, from the perspective of justice and the reporting of correct cause of death.

The World Health Organization states that countries "need to know how many people are born and die each year – and the main causes of their deaths – in order to have well-functioning health systems". latrogenic suicide takes lives each year. We need to know how many. We need to monitor and address it. We cannot and should not hide it. We rightly monitor mental illness rates and suicide statistics and have a suicide prevention office to address this. However, iatrogenic suicide is different, and deserves its own attention and monitoring if we are to have a functioning health system that works on preventing such tragedies as happened to Jake and many others.

There does not appear to be specific reference to iatrogenic suicide in the legislation of other English-speaking jurisdictions. Therefore, Ireland has a chance to be a leader on this issue by passing this amending legislation and recognising the difference between suicide and iatrogenic suicide. As the scientific evidence for the link between some medications and suicidal tendencies grows, countries will need to legislate for this. Ireland has a chance to be quick off the mark in being an example in this regard.

We understand that the publication of this Bill is symbolic. It is obvious that the Coroners Act 1962 is no longer fit for purpose and should be repealed and replaced with an amended version of the Coroners Bill 2007 as a matter of priority. The amended version of the 2007 Bill should contain a comprehensive list of verdicts open for a coroner or a jury, as the case may be, to return. When it is finally amended, this list should provide for a verdict of iatrogenic suicide to be made.I hope the Government and everyone in the Chamber will support the Bill.

Whispers from senior civil servants about unintended consequences reach my ears at times. This legislation could not be more straightforward - it gives a coroner another option. The Minister will appreciate that a coroner will examine all the evidence before him or her and attempt to make as accurate as possible an adjudication on or assessment of what caused the person's life to be lost. For the reasons I have stated, it is vital for the sake of accuracy that the Government support this amendment to the Coroners Act and allow it to continue through the Houses and be debated on Committee Stage and afterwards. For the loved ones in the Gallery today and for many more watching on, the main point is that we should have a society that reflects accurately the cause of death, does not turn a blind eye to the issues at hand and protects other families from suffering what Jake's family suffered. I appeal to the Minister to support this amending Bill and allow it to proceed through the Houses and the debate on it to develop. This is an important matter and I hope to have all of the House's support for allowing the Bill and the debate to progress and for justice to be done by these families.