Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I think there is an element of confusion in what the Minister is saying. I can understand him when he says that when the eighth amendment was in place it was seen to be required that there would be this clear statement but what he is ignoring is just because it is maybe not as required now at the constitutional level, that does not mean that it is not desirable. As I said, the existing legislation on abortion clearly points to a certain attitude to the unborn after 12 weeks. That is the first thing. Human decency points to a certain attitude that is more easily shared across society towards later-term pregnancy. We all know where I stand on the protection but that is not the subject of today’s discussion.

I have pointed to the potentially very unhappy effects on a family. I will grant the Minister that the eighth amendment may have necessitated something, but just because that constitutional necessity is no longer there, that does not mean that this is not desirable. It is still desirable, having regard to what the law in other areas provides around the unborn post 12 weeks. It is still desirable because of practice.

The Minister is asking us instead to somehow believe that where the presumption in favour of preserving the life is taken away - and he is physically taking it out of the 2015 legislation - he is trying to just wave it all away and saying, “Oh, do not worry, in clinical practice they will do what they always do and what they currently do”. I do not know what that means. All I know is that the Minister is taking something fairly innocuous and desirable out of the law, which is just that there is a presumption in favour of saving a life. That is not a lot to ask. He is saying, “Oh do not worry”. I think he trying to tell us that in these situations doctors will still disregard the AHD and will preserve the life of the child, even if there is a general refusal of treatment. I do not know whether that is true. He is telling me that it is true. I do not know whether it is true. He is saying that it is up to the decision of the healthcare professional, but I would rather have it in law that there should be a presumption in favour of giving that treatment. I have no idea what those kinds of general, wave-it-away with references to clinical practice mean. I do not know what the Medical Council guidelines are on this subject; I do not know what they will be in five years. All I know is that we are here to try to shape and adjust the law for the common good. I think that is what the Minister should apply his mind to as well. All that I am asking is - and I think there is some support for me in this House - that he will take away our points on this topic and that he will undertake to reflect on it again before Report Stage.