Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not have much to add but I will make some quick points. I understand the value of teasing out, as we did in the other House, what is harm, serious harm and risk. My first point is similar to Senator Bacik's. This wording has not changed since the publication of the draft wording and this is very much the framework on which we campaigned. As the Senators know, it is something I am holding to as we take the legislation through the Oireachtas.

Senator Kelleher is entirely right and it is appropriate that these matters are teased out in guidelines written by clinicians who will be operating under the law, as opposed to people like me being overly prescriptive. I do not mean to be pejorative but we, as legislators, may accidentally interfere in the work of clinicians getting that right. I fully agree with Senator Kelleher that it is very important we have good guidelines. There is much work being done by many really dedicated clinicians to ensure that is the case. I have consciously taken the decision, as has the Government, not to define the word "serious" in the legislation. If we did so, we would tie the hands of doctors. This must be about clinical judgment, which is important. I imagine the concerns of the people would be more heightened if the word "serious" was defined. I would not have brought in legislation in that regard.

Senator Bacik made the important point that we need to read section 9(1) in totality as all the words matter. If we pick just one word, such as "serious", but do not consider the likes of the word "appropriate", we might miss the context. On the basis of the legal advice and the clinical information we heard yesterday, Seanad Éireann should not amend the section.