Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will follow on from that. Is it now the case that in all our future legislation there will never be anything but references to "the pregnancy", when what is meant is the child in uteroor, in Latin, the foetus, which I think means "little one", that clearly identifies the human entity as the child in utero? Is there are any openness to something more precise, following on from what Senator Doherty said, such as using the words "foetus" or "the child in utero"? Is the Minister in a position to tell us today whether there is any other legislation that mentions what the Constitution used to refer to as "the unborn" in terms other than "the pregnancy" or "her pregnancy"? I will leave that as a question.

I will ask another question. By the way, I marked my opposition to these sections because I am unhappy with certain aspects of them, though not all. I am clearly not opposing the section in general. I could just as easily have spoken to the section without saying I am opposing it but I will oppose it on Report Stage for sure, if there is no change on the other provision we discussed earlier. As I said, I am uncomfortable about the language used. I will ask one other substantive question. Again, as I said, it is so difficult to talk about these issues when there is a myriad of different healthcare situations that can arise, but there is no provision in this section allowing a healthcare professional to give treatment to avoid a deleterious effect on the unborn or on the pregnancy while a court decision is being made around considerations of non-life sustaining treatment. In other words, these are the provisions of section 89(1) that include considerations of an advance healthcare directive that do not relate to life-sustaining treatment but, presumably, to some other kind of treatment.

Could it ever happen that there would be some kind of treatment that would not necessarily be life sustaining for the mother the denial or refusal of which might be damaging to the unborn? Perhaps the answer is never but was any consideration given to that? I am not a medical person. It is clear that the only leeway given to a healthcare professional to continue to give treatment for the sake of the child while a determination is being made by the court only applies to cases where there is a discussion about life-sustaining treatment. I presume that is because there are no circumstances that would involve a directive-maker refusing in advance non-life sustaining treatment and which refusal could potentially harm the child in utero. Does the Minister have an answer to that question? It is noteworthy that the only leeway given is to the healthcare professional in circumstances where the issue before the court involves the refusal of life-sustaining treatment.