Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I feel it is important to again highlight the rushed nature of this legislation. The Minister's rationale for the rushed process was that a constitutional challenge was ongoing. A response to a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Mark Ward, states, "The constitutional challenge was adjourned on the basis that wardship would be abolished in orderly fashion via an Act of the Oireachtas", and that remains the case. Legislation of this magnitude cannot be rushed to accommodate such external consideration.

Several of my colleagues from a range of political backgrounds have now highlighted the shortcomings in this Bill, most notably the fact that, as proposed, it contains discriminatory language and is inconsistent with Ireland's obligations under the UNCRPD. The Minister has been provided with constructive, actionable solutions through numerous contributions and proposed amendments. Unfortunately, most of these amendments were not accepted, which is deeply disappointing. The proposed amendments which I and others previously submitted would have had a significant impact on the rights of disabled people, older people and people with experience of mental health services. With the appropriate amendments accepted, this Bill could address the failures of our legal and healthcare systems' treatment of individuals with disabilities. It could allow for the creation of a much stronger and more effective version of the Bill which would truly uphold the principles of human rights and autonomy. As my colleague, Senator Black, has previously stated, we need to build people up, not codify their exclusion from full participation in society. I urge the Minister in the strongest terms to consider the proposed amendments in this grouping and use this opportunity to create a lasting and positive impact for those who have so often been victimised and discriminated against.

I will also speak to amendment No. 13 specifically, regarding people who have obtained the age of 16.I ask the Minister, in particular, to reconsider his position with regard to this proposed amendment. The Minister has in the past stated that this Bill is designed to apply to adults and is reflective of the reality that parents and guardians have specific legal responsibilities in respect of minors. However, I would draw the Minister's attention to the range of surgical, medical and dental treatments to which 16- and 17-year-olds currently have the ability to consent. It is important to be constantly reminded of the underlying principle that consent does not require that people make the objectively correct decision. It simply requires that they have the capacity to understand the necessary information in that moment and make an informed decision. In layman's terms, those who have capacity are free to make objectively bad decisions.

A young person experiencing a medical need should not be disadvantaged or disregarded on the basis of their illness being mental as opposed to physical. The proposed Bill would codify a situation where a 16-year-old can refuse life-saving vaccines or blood transfusions. However, a peer, with the support of a doctor, family or other trusted advisor, who makes an advance healthcare directive would not have his or her decision respected and given effect. The alternative situation, as we have seen for many decades, is a system where doctors, families and the courts are left to try to assess what they believe is in the best interests of the individual. Such a system leads to often inconsistent and, indeed, delayed treatment that may not honour the expressly stated wishes of the individual. The Minister has previously acknowledged this lacuna in respect of young people's rights and has stated that this issue "would require a more detailed examination than can be provided for at this stage". Given the fundamental nature of the rights addressed in this Bill and the potential lifelong consequences for individuals subject to such decisions, I urge the Minister to afford this Bill the time and scrutiny necessary to undertake such examination.