Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have no difficulty with Senator Mullen's questions. The answer is to refer to the fact that the 2013 Act refers to "immediately necessary". As a result of that, the Medical Council guidelines also refer to "necessary". The Medical Council has already indicated that its guidelines will now be updated following what I hope will soon become a new Act. Senator Mullen is quoting – he is quite right to do so – guidelines that will change as the legislation changes.

I suggest Senator Mullen is also somewhat selectively quoting. The appropriate test, if I may refer to it as such, is one of three tests that two doctors must reach in conjunction with the woman before a termination can be carried out. The amendment refers to section 9. The section states that a termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with the section where two medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is a risk to life or serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman. We have discussed that and there are different views as to whether the word "serious" should be used. I have held the line, if I may use that phrase, in the sense of sticking to what we said we would do with that provision. The section continues by providing that the foetus must not have reached viability and that it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy in order to avert the risk.

Of course there are Senators who have tabled amendments that will come before the House later that will seek to lessen that test and replace it with the word "mitigate". There are different views on the matter. However, when we take the three items together in the round, we can see the standard of proof before a termination can take place. It requires two doctors who believe there is a serious risk of harm to the health or life of the woman and the foetus must not have reached viability. Moreover, the treatment must be deemed to be appropriate to avert the risk. The test of "avert" is, as we will be discussing later, a high bar as well. We need to be careful in this regard.

I believe it is appropriate – pardon the pun; I did not mean that – or apt that doctors and women can determine what is appropriate in this situation.

I do not think it is obscure for any member of any Government to refer to the fact that he or she has consulted with the Attorney General's office and has relied on its legal advice for clarity. That is long-standing parliamentary practice in this country.