Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to my amendment No. 6. There is a very serious concern over the word "avert", which we have discussed at length and on which I understand there has been commentary from different sides. It was aired on Committee Stage in the House so we do not have to go into too much detail on it. "Avert" is an absolute word which is generally construed as meaning to "stop" or to "turn aside", and this was the language used by the Minister on Committee Stage.

The concern is that putting in a requirement to avert could be highly burdensome. An action may have been clinically shown to be likely to reduce a risk from 60% to 20% but not to fully avert that risk. My amendment is not in perfect English but it is an attempt to respond to the Minister's point on Committee Stage that it was the word he had put to the public. I have suggested "avert or substantially avert" to indicate there is scope in the word "avert". In yesterday's briefing, we were told that "avert" related to the increased risk and not to serious harm. It would be impossible to say we can avert serious harm. We can diminish the risk of serious harm or mitigate it but, if an action results in harm, could there be a vulnerability in its interpretation in this context? In the expected implementation of this provision, did the Minister say this was to avert an increase in risk, but not serious harm? I think many doctors would be very reluctant about this provision in the context of variable clinical settings and medical conditions that move very quickly across the spectrum. Can the Minister clarify this?