Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Were the Minister kind enough to come back on Report Stage with specific answers to the questions I asked, I would be very grateful. The question I asked a moment ago might reveal my huge medical ignorance, as I said, but neither of us are medical people and it is very relevant. If it were the case, for example, that there were certain kinds of non-life sustaining treatment the refusal of which could actually endanger the unborn, it might bear on our thinking about the absence of a protection for the healthcare giver in that situation. I assume it is nonsensical to think there would be but I would be grateful for clarification on that before we all vote on this on a later Stage.

In the same way, the Minster said the role of the court would be to resolve an ambiguity. Is it only where there is ambiguity in the advance healthcare directive that the courts would have a role? It is not necessarily ambiguous, on one reading, that an advance healthcare directive is silent on what is to happen in the case of pregnancy. It is silent and it speaks from its silence. A view could be taken that that is not ambiguous but in fact means no care and care is being refused, full stop. Is the courts' role only for the resolution of ambiguities? Is it clear from the legislation, or is there any scope, for the court to have any jurisdiction to overturn the clearly expressed provisions of an advance healthcare directive?