David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support these amendments. I vigorously opposed a number of Senator Mullen's amendments and believed they were shameful but I support these ones. I will not rehearse too much my support for amendment No. 47.I stated earlier on in this discussion that, although I believe abortion is necessary and justifiable, and morally good in certain circumstances, forcing medical practitioners to refer is the equivalent of them being an accessory. That is my view. People should not be forced to violate their conscience in any way.

It has been said that the Code of Conduct for Pharmacists covers the matter of pharmacists I raise in my amendment. My good friend and colleague, Senator Bacik, has shown me a phrase that she thought fulfilled this requirement. Having read it, I do not believe it does. I have had contact from a number of pharmacists who state that the Code of Conduct for Pharmacists 2009 and the draft code published in June 2018 but not adopted clearly show that pharmacists' rights to freedom of conscience are nowhere mentioned or protected. One of these, who seems to be a rather distinguished woman with a PhD, quotes the Minister, Deputy Harris, as saying that pharmacists are protected and they have their own legislation for a code of conduct. This person states that the same could be said for doctors, nurses and midwives but they are not included. The person said the Minister stated that the conscientious objection clause does not refer to other personnel in institutions for the express purpose of clarifying that those staff in institutions are not entitled to conscientious objection. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that it is, indeed, his view that other professional groups are not entitled to conscientious objection. That is rather serious, particularly in the light of the report from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, recommendation 20 of which states: "The Commission recommends that the provisions of Head 15 be made to apply more broadly than currently outlined in Head 15(1), to provide for the possibility of conscientious objection by the broader range of health and social care profession with whom a pregnant woman or girl may come into contact." That is quite clear. It is explicit and makes the point that the commission is independent. It is not campaigning for or against abortion or anything like that. The commission is saying that head 15 should be made to apply more generally to cater for freedom of conscience and the conscientious objection of other professionals within this general range of expertise, and we must take this seriously.

I understand part of the position taken by my friends with whom I do not agree because there is a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights that: "States are obliged to organise the health services system in such a way as to ensure that an effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals in the professional context does not prevent patients from obtaining access to services to which they are entitled under the applicable legislation." That freedom of conscience should not frustrate the operation of the legislation is an interesting and important point that must be taken into account but given the numbers of doctors who are prepared to be engaged in this and have no difficulty with it, I do not believe that allowing doctors the complete freedom of conscience and extending this to cover pharmacists would inhibit the implementation of this legislation.