Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, line 25, to delete “appropriate” and substitute “necessary”.

Amendment No. 38 is consequential on amendment No. 7. The current section 9 relates to the risk to life or health of the mother and states, as one of the necessary factors for a termination under this section, that it be "appropriate" to carry out the termination of pregnancy in order to avert the risk.The use of the word "appropriate" seems to be inaccurate or incorrect. For that reason, this amendment clarifies that the appropriate word should be "necessary". In other words, it should be necessary to carry out a termination to avert the risk. I would make a comparison with other cases where there is a risk to life. Would we say that the use of a defibrillator to assist someone who has suffered cardiac arrest is appropriate or necessary? When an oncologist is discussing the option of chemotherapy with a patient, does he or she describe the treatment as appropriate or necessary? Surely we would describe it as being necessary in each case to avert the risk to life rather than being simply appropriate in each of these cases. The use of the term "appropriate" to describe such a drastic and invasive treatment seems almost a contradiction in terms.

I am aware that the Minister voted down a similar amendment introduced by Deputy Donnelly of Fianna Fáil on Committee Stage in the Dáil. In fact, I recall what seemed to be a bizarre contribution when Deputy Donnelly said that he was putting forward the amendment under protest at the behest of his party almost as if he had a gun to his head. The Minister rejected his amendment on the grounds of legal advice and because he feared it would have a chilling effect on medical practice. The terms "legal advice" and "chilling effect" should not have become but, sadly, have become stock phrases used by Government to dismiss any and all points or amendments without having to give proper details on the reason.

The Minister also said that he believed the word "necessary" to be too prescriptive based on his interactions with doctors. Maybe he will give a similar response here today. I would ask him to expand on this. Whom did he consult on this issue? What doctors or doctors' representative groups were asked whether this phraseology was too restrictive? Who told the Minister that an alternative wording - the use of the more normal word "necessary" - would have a chilling effect? It is important that the House has clarity on all of that before we vote on the amendment I am proposing because none of us believes that good medicine should ever be subject to anything that could be described as a chilling effect. Chilling effects are desirable when it comes to preventing bad things happening. Bad things include inappropriate interventions without proper reasonable grounds, particularly where such bad things have the effect of taking away innocent life.

The Minister also said that to use wording other than that used in the Bill could have implications for obstetric practice-----