Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is the wrong and injustice in this. Senator Wilson referred to the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2010. I know about it because I was there and involved in the debate. I believe he was referring to the debate on what was known as the McCafferty report. It started as an attack on conscientious objection. Much of what we have heard in recent months claims that the right to conscientious objection inhibits the delivery of care but the report in question turned into a ringing endorsement of people's right to object in conscience to procedures they believed unethical. The buzz phrase in this area is "reasonable accommodation". When the power of the State is behind the provision of abortion and the Minister has access to the purse strings - essentially being able to advertise and provide information about the services that will now, tragically, be legal - the Minister can afford to be much more generous than he is being in allowing people to go their own way peacefully and respectfully.

That is not, as I think the Taoiseach said, giving the cold shoulder to people. It is the continuation of a tradition of caring medicine that has the idea that two people are being cared for. It is about asking a practitioner to refer a patient to somebody who will take away the innocent life that is growing within the patient, and it asks too much of a caring professional. In the end, it is not for the Minister, Senator Reilly or anybody else to tell a person what ought or what ought not be in conflict with his or her conscience. That is with the exception of where there is bona fide medical care to which a person is entitled, as conscientious objection cannot prevail over that. Where we speak of elective procedures, it is absolutely wrong and unjust to say to a person that he or she does not have to carry out the abortion, at least not under this law, but it is not the case if the health service or professional organisation requires that person to do so. It is tough if that person does not like or want to be complicit in facilitating the injustice by passing on information about the service.

I know of one case where a person resigned not because that person did not want to do something against that person's conscience but rather there was a reluctance to delegate it to another professional. That person was willing to take a step down in the organisation, allowing another worker to do the delegation. The person was not asked to do the service to which there was a conscientious objection. It was the person's sensitive conscience and that person did not want to be a cog in the wheel. The trouble with the Government's Bill is that this has not been thought through, at best, and at worst it is pretending there is protection for freedom of conscience. It is only there in fig leaf form for the two reasons I have mentioned. It does not prevent a person from being disciplined-----