Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 28 to 32, inclusive, are to section 22 that deals with conscientious objection. As we debated the principle at length on Committee Stage, I will be brief.

Like most of my colleagues on the pro-choice side, I have sat in a very dignified and respectful silence through many hours of debate on Monday, Tuesday and today, but it is important that I outline some of my objections to the amendments. If one looks at the international human rights context of conscientious objection law, one will see that conscientious objection is recognised internationally, but the right is not absolute.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has held that the exercise of conscientious objection must not be a barrier to accessing sexual and reproductive health services and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, has called upon state parties to establish an effective mechanism of referral if health service providers refuse to perform reproductive health services for women based on conscientious objection. Furthermore, relevant European Court of Human Rights rulings establish that governments are obliged to ensure that the exercise of freedom of conscience does not block patients from accessing services to which they are legally entitled.

That is the international human rights framework in which we approach legislating on this important issue and as I said on Committee Stage, this Bill sets that balance correctly. Section 22 gives a right of conscientious objection. Many of us might take a view that this should not be necessary in legislation on abortion as it is not necessary in other healthcare provision legislation, however, I accept that it is here and that there are international legal principles dealing with conscientious objection but where conscientious objection rights are recognised in law, they must be balanced by a duty to ensure that patients can access services and that is critical here.

I have been contacted by pharmacists and I am listening to what those who are putting forward amendments on pharmacy have said. I should also say that my mother worked as a pharmacist for many years so I am very familiar with the pharmaceutical working environment because I have even worked in a pharmacy myself, albeit just as a shop assistant. It is important to note that the current code of conduct for pharmacies about which I spoke on Committee Stage, which was developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, already states that where pharmacists are unable to provide prescribed medicines or pharmaceutical services, they must take reasonable action to ensure the services are provided and patient care is not jeopardised.

I know a redrafted code being drawn up to take account of the new legislation and I know the Minister will speak to that but the pre-eminent point in any statement around conscientious objection for any professional, is that pre-eminent duty to ensure that patient care is not jeopardised. That is there in section 22 as it applies to students, nurses and midwives, as well as to other medical professionals and it is there in the pharmaceutical code of conduct.

It is very important that conscientious objection principles are not used as a vehicle to try to undermine patient right of access. I fear that in the lengthy debate on Committee Stage we saw this idea of conscientious objection as conscientious obstruction. I accept that is absolutely not the motivation of some colleagues in putting this forward but we have to be careful that it does not become obstructive of the main purpose of this legislation and the main purpose of this legislation and of the 66.4% of people who voted "Yes" in May was to ensure that women would have access to abortion services in Ireland, not medical professionals, and we need to ensure the debate focuses and remains focused on the women who need the services.