Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I certainly will not be taking issue with whatever the Cathaoirleach decides other than that I would have hoped Senators would take on board the amendments and come to a more sober judgment on them, thereby affording them an opportunity to accept them on Report Stage. There will not, by definition, be a similar debate on Report Stage because Senators may speak only once on the issues. I will be guided by the Cathaoirleach, however.

I do not envy the Medical Council in its task of revising guidelines. It has said the process will take some time. It will certainly take skilled draftsmen to amend these guidelines without making it obvious that a doctor's ethical duty to unborn children is effectively being abolished by the Oireachtas. Interestingly, the guidelines go on to point out that it is "legally permissible" to perform abortions under certain circumstances under the law as it currently stands but it makes no statement as to the ethics of this. Therefore, the Medical Council guidelines implicitly draw a distinction between what is ethical and what is legal. It is also worth noting that the section of the guidelines dealing with abortion, clause 48, is immediately followed by the section on conscientious objection, clause 49. The two issues were clearly linked in the mind of the Medical Council when it originally drafted the guidelines.

The Bill seeks to abolish all of this. It drives a coach and four through the Medical Council's own ethical guideline by forcing the council to force doctors to say that what is now unethical is in fact ethical and that the unborn child is no longer a patient of the doctors, yet this legislation seeks to delete or abolish this ethical duty to the lives and health of unborn babies. I was on RTÉ's "The Week in Politics" last Sunday with a number of others Senators, including Senator Richmond, who raised the interesting point that in his view doctors have a right to conscientiously object but do not have a right to break the law of the land. This raises an interesting question, which I shall pose to Senators who support this legislation. Existing Medical Council guidelines contain an ethical duty to do everything to protect the life of an unborn child. This Bill now seeks to abolish that ethical duty on pain of criminal punishment for doctors. I ask those who support this Bill where we draw the line. What other principles of medical ethics can be overridden by legislation by a future Government and future Oireachtas? I ask colleagues to think very carefully about that. If one principle of medical ethics can be scrapped by the Oireachtas, then none of them is safe. There is no floor to how low we can stoop and nothing we cannot force doctors to do.

We have heard a lot of talk about the right of women to choose but what about a doctor's right to choose? How can one person's right to choose become a right to force somebody else to take part in something against his or her will and become a cog in the wheel, however directly or indirectly? If the State is to have no right to tell women what to do, then why is it in a position to tell doctors what to do where telling them to do what it expects of them goes against everything they have always believed to be true and good, having regard to their deeply held beliefs and best clinical judgment? Just because the law no longer sees the baby as a patient does not mean good doctors will not still hold these beliefs, including where abortion is being sought. Therefore, it cannot be maintained that forcing doctors to refer that invisible patient, that less visible patient, that more vulnerable patient, although both persons involved might well be vulnerable, to another doctor to have their life ended is in accord with respect for conscientious objection. This aspect of the Bill, which forces doctors to refer, simply has to be amended. There will be more than enough doctors who will be willing to carry out these procedures so what is the need to force others to refer? At least 25% of general practitioners have said they are willing to perform the service, I gather. That is approximately 625. Assuming a worst-case scenario and 12,000 abortions per annum, as Dr. Peter Boylan and his colleagues suggested at the Oireachtas health committee, it would mean each willing general practitioner would need to perform a maximum of 20 terminations per year. These are shocking figures, of course, but they at least show that allowing those doctors who wish to participate to do so and equally allowing those who wish not to participate not to do so will still ensure adequate coverage of the service, if that is what the House wishes. I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support these amendments to show solidarity with doctors around the country who, I am sure, have been in contact with them in regard to this most serious of issues.

We are not just talking about the rights of doctors here. We are also talking about the rights of medical practitioners, nurses and midwives. Senator Norris is proposing, as are we, the inclusion of pharmacists. I spoke to a pharmacist the other day who is terrified of the consequences of being required by law to prescribe a drug that would be used upstairs to terminate the life of innocent child. That person wonders whether he or she has a future in the organisation. He or she wonders whether there will be any reasonable accommodation for their position.

It is important, however, to consider a perhaps even more significant issue than the right to refer. I call the relevant amendment the "Minister Harris amendment" because, on Committee Stage, he said a medical practitioner shall not be obliged to take part, but that is different from what is in the Bill. The Bill states nothing in the Act shall be construed as obliging any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife to carry out or participate in carrying out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with sections 9, 11 or 12 to which he or she has a conscientious objection. The difference is that the Minister said on Committee Stage that a practitioner would not be obliged. That can only mean there is protection or that he was claiming there was protection for a person who might be obliged by his employer, for example, to take part in abortion. The Minister's Bill, however, does not require medical practitioners, nurses or midwives to get involved but it does nothing to protect, in the new scenario he is bringing about, medical practitioners, nurses, midwives and pharmacists from being required by the rules, including the rules of the organisation with which they have a contract to work, to become involved. They could lose their job. The provision of limited protection for conscientious objection is effectively null. While the Bill will not impose an obligation, it does nothing to protect practitioners from the pressure that will be put on them under contract or by their employer. This is how the Minister's provision in this Bill differs from provisions on conscientious objection in other places. That is an important issue he should address here.