Dáil Éireann

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Dáil Éireann DÁIL ÉIREANN AN COMHCHOISTE UM SHLÁINTE AGUS LEANAÍ JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN Dé Máirt, 8 Eanáir 2013 Tuesday, 8 January 2013 The Joint Committee met at 9.30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Catherine Byrne, Senator Colm Burke, Deputy Ciara Conway, Senator John Crown, Deputy Regina Doherty, Senator Imelda Henry, Deputy Robert Dowds, Senator Marc MacSharry, Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick, Senator Jillian van Turnhout. Deputy Seamus Healy, Deputy Billy Kelleher, Deputy Mattie McGrath, Deputy Eamonn Maloney, Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor, Deputy Denis Naughten, Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, In attendance: Deputies Ciaran Cannon, Paudie Coffey, Joan Collins, Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, Joe Costello, Michael Creed, Bernard J. Durkan, Damien English, Frank Feighan, Terence Flanagan, Simon Harris, Kevin Humphreys, Finian McGrath, Joe McHugh, Tony McLoughlin, Derek Nolan, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Patrick O’Donovan, John O’Mahony, Willie Penrose, John Paul Phelan, Shane Ross, Billy Timmins and Peadar Tóibín, and Senators Ivana Bacik, Sean D. Barrett, Paul Bradford, Terry Brennan, Martin Conway, Fi- delma Healy Eames, Terry Leyden, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Marie-Louise O’Donnell, Jim Walsh, Mary M. White and Katherine Zappone. DEPUTY JERRY BUTTIMER IN THE CHAIR. 1 Implementationof G OVernmentD ecisionF ollowingEX pertG roupR eportinto M attersR elatingto A, B and C V. I reland Implementation of Government Decision Following Expert Group Report into Matters Relating to A, B and C v. Ireland Chairman: I welcome everyone to the meeting. I thank the Cathaoirleach, the Clerk of the Seanad and the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges for facilitating our request to meet in the Seanad Chamber. This is the first in a series of hearings the joint committee will conduct in the next three days to discuss the implementation of the Government decision fol- lowing the recent publication of the expert group report on matters relating to the case A, B and C v. Ireland. On Tuesday, 18 December 2012, the Government decided to accept the expert group’s suggestion that the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the A, B and C v. Ireland case be addressed by the putting in place of legislation and regulations setting out the current constitutional position, as stated in Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Members of the committee and I are conscious of the complexity and sensitivity of this issue. For these same reasons, the Government decided that the process of drafting the heads of the Bill and draft regulations in line with its decision would not occur until after the Joint Committee on Health and Children had conducted hearings over three days this week. The Government has stated the aim of its action in this matter is to ensure clarity and legal certainty with regard to the process to be followed in the determination of whether a pregnancy is permis- sible in cases where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of a woman, as a result of that pregnancy. In doing so we must ensure we take full account of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. The Government’s decision is confined to the option to be pursued in order to bring regulations and rules to an area which is currently unregulated. As Chairman, it is my intention, with the co-operation of members and witnesses, to facilitate a discussion on current medical guidelines and legal practices with regard to legal and medical expertise, to ascertain the difficulties, if any, legal and medical, encountered by medical experts when mak- ing decisions and to provide a forum for the expression of views, recognising the broad range of views in this matter. When the meetings have concluded, the committee should furnish a report to the Govern- ment summarising the oral and verbal contributions it has heard and received from various stakeholders. Over the course of the next three days the committee will hear a wide range of views from legal and medical experts, as well as from churches and advocacy groups, on what issues should be considered when implementing the Government’s decision to accept the expert group’s suggestions. I hope this will be a positive and constructive discussion giving each wit- ness and committee member the opportunity to express his or her views. I hope we will respect and listen to each other. I intend to ensure the hearings will be conducted in a balanced, fair and calm manner, focusing on the issues which need to be considered in the drafting of the heads of the Bill. While we all recognise that many people have divergent and deeply held views on the issues involved, it is vital that the meetings are held in a manner that is respectful and tolerant. In drawing up the panel of witnesses and speakers for the hearings members of the commit- tee and Members of the Oireachtas who are not members of the committee suggested names as relevant panellists. These suggestions were considered and invitations were subsequently issued. In the selection of panellists and witnesses to appear before the committee, we have 2 JOINT COMMITTEE ON Health AND CHILDREN done our best to ensure a fair and balanced expression of views, which will include contribu- tions from experts, both academic and practising, in the legal and medical fields. In particular, it is of the utmost importance that the Government and Oireachtas are fully aware of the current medical guidelines and practice and how these guidelines have been implemented and operated over recent years. In order to ensure that all attending and participating in these hearings have a full under- standing of the matter at hand, my committee colleagues and I are strongly of the view that we should provide a background and context to the Government decision. For this reason, the hearings this morning will commence with a statement from the Department of Health. This will set out the background to the Government decision, including the judgment of the Euro- pean Court of Human Rights in December 2010 which led to the establishment of the expert review group by the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, and the subsequent publication of its report. The committee recognises that the Department of Health has not yet developed policy detail on this particular matter. Our hearings this week will no doubt feed into that development and into the drafting of the heads of a Bill and draft regulations. This morning’s session will comprise statements by representatives of the Department of Health and the Medical Council. Later today we will hear from the Masters of the maternity hospitals and from the country’s foremost practising academic psychiatrists. The insights pro- vided by the witnesses appearing before us in the course of the week will frame the basis upon which the committee will proceed in its efforts to assist the Government in understanding and assessing the issues at hand. Tomorrow we will hear from legal experts on existing constitu- tional and legal provisions and there will be discussion on how to frame legislation as per the Government’s decision. On Thursday the committee will receive the views of the churches and various advocacy groups on the decision being implemented by Government. I ask my committee colleagues and other Oireachtas Members attending these discussions to bear in mind that our objective is to elicit as much information as possible from the witnesses appearing before us. I am conscious that these discussions are taking place in the eye of the nation and this is a very complex issue on which people hold strong and divergent view points. In that context, I hope we have a constructive, positive and comprehensive debate in the coming days which will allow us to make a thorough report to Government. I ask my committee colleagues and other Oireachtas Members attending the discussion to bear in mind that our objective is to elicit as much information as possible from our witnesses. I am conscious that we are meeting in the eye of the nation. Given that this is a very complex issue on which many people holddivergent and strong view points, that we have a constructive, positive and comprehensive debate in the coming days on which we can report back to Govern- ment. In accordance with the format agreed at our meeting last night, we will begin with a pre- sentation by the Department of Health, followed by a statement from the Irish Medical Coun- cil. After that we will have 80 minutes for discussion, comprising 60 minutes for questions by members and 20 minutes for non-members, with ten minutes at the end for summation. I remind all Members that they should put questions rather than making Second Stage speeches. The 80 minutes set aside for discussion allow time for responses from the delegates. Deputy Terence Flanagan: I understand that of the large number of submissions made to the committee, not all submitting parties were selected to appear this week to deliver a presenta- tion in person. Will the submissions by parties not attending the meetings this week be posted 3 Implementationof G OVernmentD ecisionF ollowingEX pertG roupR eportinto M attersR elatingto A, B and C V. I reland on the committee’s website? Chairman: Yes, all the submissions will be posted to the website. Members can also collect hard copies of submissions in the ante-room. Deputy Terence Flanagan: Has the committee signed off on the witnesses who were se- lected to come before it this week? Chairman: Yes. The Chair was given plenary powers in advance of last night’s meeting. Senator Paul Bradford: I thank the Chairman for his inclusive introduction to the meet- ing.
Recommended publications
  • The 2013 Irish Legislation on Abortion: Turning-Point Or Missed Opportunity?
    NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND GALWAY European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2013/2014 The 2013 Irish legislation on abortion: turning-point or missed opportunity? A critical analysis from a human rights perspective Author: Chiara Cosentino Supervisor: Noelle Higgins Ackowledgements I would like to thank Noelle Higgins, from the NUI of Galway, for the supervision of the present work and for her precise and insightful comments and suggestions. Furthermore, I would like to deeply thank the contacted civil society organisations that kindly and enthusiastically agreed on allowing me to steal a bit of their time for interviews. They were fundamental for my analysis, for the perception from the ground they gave me, and for the global picture that I could capture from their different angles of perspective on the topic. In particular I would love to thank for their availability Richie Keane (Coordinator of Doctors For Choice), Sinéad Corcoran (member of the Policy and Advocacy Team of Abortion Right Campaign), Kelly Mackey (from the Campaign Office of Amnesty International Ireland), Maeve Taylor (Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer of the Irish Family Planning Association) and Dette McLoughlin, John Walshe and Joseph Loughnane (members of Galway Pro-Choice). I would also like to thank my family, my parents, my sister and my grandmother for their unconditional support, and for making my participation in this Master possible, both with their practical help and love. I missed them throughout this year, but we all know that, wherever I am, they are always in my heart. Moreover, I would like to thank all my friends, old and new, for what they mean and they will always mean to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Dáil Éireann
    DÁIL ÉIREANN AN COMHCHOISTE UM AN OCHTÚ LEASÚ AR AN MBUNREACHT JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITU- TION Dé Céadaoin, 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2017 Wednesday, 25 October 2017 The Joint Committee met at 1.30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy James Browne, Senator Paul Gavan, Deputy Lisa Chambers, Senator Rónán Mullen, Deputy Ruth Coppinger, Senator Lynn Ruane. Deputy Clare Daly, Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick, Deputy Billy Kelleher, Deputy Mattie McGrath, Deputy Catherine Murphy, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton, Deputy Jonathan O’Brien, Deputy Kate O’Connell, Deputy Louise O’Reilly, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, Deputy Anne Rabbitte, SENATOR CATHERINE NOONE IN THE CHAIR. 1 JEAC The joint committee met in private session until 2.15 p.m. Business of Joint Committee Chairman: We are now in public session. I welcome members. I welcome viewers who may be watching our proceedings on Oireachtas television to this meeting in public session of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. We will be holding three separate sessions this afternoon. The first session will address risk to mental health; the second will address termination arising from rape and the third will look at personal experience of cases of fatal foetal abnormality. We had invited the support group One More Day to that third session, however, they could not make today’s session and the secretariat will accommodate them on a date in November. I welcome Professor Veronica O’Keane to the meeting, but before I introduce her I must attend to some housekeeping matters. There are two items of correspondence that I need to read into the record.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reproductive Right, Or a Moral Profligacy?
    A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT, OR A MORAL PROFLIGACY? A POLICY PAPER DISCUSSING THE LEGISLATIVE FUTURE FOR MALTA An Għaqda Studenti Tal-Liġi Policy Paper © Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi 2020 OPENING REMARKS INTRODUCTION It is with great pleasure that I present A multidisciplinary modus operandi was to you this year’s GħSL policy paper employed to offer a holistic discussion addressing the subject of Abortion, a and this was achieved through a paper which is the culmination of the thorough examination of pertinent comprehensive work of the GħSL Policy areas beyond the legal sphere such as Office. medical research, ethical considerations involved, as well as the psychological GħSL strives to keep law students as aspects, among others. well as society as a whole abreast regarding current legal issues in Malta. Moreover, a comparative exercise was An ongoing area of contention featuring carried out, whereby the laws regulating, across local media centres around the restricting and prohibiting abortion were topic of abortion. Due to the polarised evaluated. This contributed towards a views on this subject, the GħSL comprehensive outcome of this policy Executive Board decided that it would paper and provided a robust reference be opportune to delve into this topic. point for active and potential students alike. As a body representing the interests of law students, throughout this paper our Finally, I would like to thank the main focus was to maintain and uphold colleagues of GħSL, including all those an impartial appreciation of the law who contributed to this paper, namely while taking into account the sensitive Dr Desiree Attard, Andrew Sciberras, nature of this topic.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reproductive Right, Or a Moral Profligacy? a Policy Paper Discussing the Legislative Future for Malta
    A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT, OR A MORAL PROFLIGACY? A POLICY PAPER DISCUSSING THE LEGISLATIVE FUTURE FOR MALTA An Għaqda Studenti Tal-Liġi Policy Paper © Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi 2020 OPENING REMARKS INTRODUCTION It is with great pleasure that I present A multidisciplinary modus operandi was to you this year’s GħSL policy paper employed to offer a holistic discussion addressing the subject of Abortion, a and this was achieved through a paper which is the culmination of the thorough examination of pertinent comprehensive work of the GħSL Policy areas beyond the legal sphere such as Office. medical research, ethical considerations involved, as well as the psychological GħSL strives to keep law students as aspects, among others. well as society as a whole abreast regarding current legal issues in Malta. Moreover, a comparative exercise was An ongoing area of contention featuring carried out, whereby the laws regulating, across local media centres around the restricting and prohibiting abortion were topic of abortion. Due to the polarised evaluated. This contributed towards a views on this subject, the GħSL comprehensive outcome of this policy Executive Board decided that it would paper and provided a robust reference be opportune to delve into this topic. point for active and potential students alike. As a body representing the interests of law students, throughout this paper our Finally, I would like to thank the main focus was to maintain and uphold colleagues of GħSL, including all those an impartial appreciation of the law who contributed to this paper, namely while taking into account the sensitive Dr Desiree Attard, Andrew Sciberras, nature of this topic.
    [Show full text]
  • 20200214 Paul Loughlin Volume Two 2000 Hrs.Pdf
    DEBATING CONTRACEPTION, ABORTION AND DIVORCE IN AN ERA OF CONTROVERSY AND CHANGE: NEW AGENDAS AND RTÉ RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMES 1968‐2018 VOLUME TWO: APPENDICES Paul Loughlin, M. Phil. (Dub) A thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Professor Eunan O’Halpin Contents Appendix One: Methodology. Construction of Base Catalogue ........................................ 3 Catalogue ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. BASE PROGRAMME CATALOGUE CONSTRUCTION USING MEDIAWEB ...................................... 148 1.2. EXTRACT - MASTER LIST 3 LAST REVIEWED 22/11/2018. 17:15H ...................................... 149 1.3. EXAMPLES OF MEDIAWEB ENTRIES .................................................................................. 150 1.4. CONSTRUCTION OF A TIMELINE ........................................................................................ 155 1.5. RTÉ TRANSITION TO DIGITISATION ................................................................................... 157 1.6. DETAILS OF METHODOLOGY AS IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS THESIS PRE-DIGITISATION ............. 159 1.7. CITATION ..................................................................................................................... 159 Appendix Two: ‘Abortion Stories’ from the RTÉ DriveTime Series ................................ 166 2.1. ANNA’S STORY .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Article 40.3.3° and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Limerick Institutional Repository 2013 Article 40.3.3 and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 1 Article 40.3.3 and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: The Impetus for, and Process of, Legislative Change Dr. Catherine O’Sullivan, Jennifer Schweppe and Dr. Eimear Spain This article serves as an introduction to this special edition of the I.J.L.S. on the recent developments on abortion law in Ireland. It briefly explains what were the two main drivers behind the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013, namely the European Court of Human Right’s judgment against Ireland in the case of A., B. & C. v. Ireland, no. 25579/05 [2010] E.C.H.R. 2032 (16 December 2010) and the untimely death of Savita Halappanavar. It then reviews a series of public hearings, heard by the Joint Committee on Health and Children in January and May 2013, on how to best meet Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and under the Constitution. Finally it details the genesis of this special edition and introduces the work of the contributors. I – Introduction This special edition of the I.J.L.S. has arisen out of recent developments in the area of abortion law in Ireland. In brief, the passage of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 (2013 Bill) through both Houses of the Oireachtas has been prompted by two main drivers. The first was the finding of the European Court of Human Rights (E.Ct.H.R.) in the December 2010 judgment of A., B.
    [Show full text]
  • UCC Library and UCC Researchers Have Made This Item Openly Available
    UCC Library and UCC researchers have made this item openly available. Please let us know how this has helped you. Thanks! Title Not thinking straight? A critical discourse analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General Author(s) Mullins, Jackie (Gertrude Jacqueline) Publication date 2013 Original citation Mullins, J. 2013. Not thinking straight? A critical discourse analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General. PhD Thesis, University College Cork. Type of publication Doctoral thesis Link to publisher's http://library.ucc.ie/record=b2073900 version Access to the full text of the published version may require a subscription. Rights © 2013, Jackie Mullins http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1128 from Downloaded on 2021-10-05T06:48:22Z TITLE PAGE Thesis Title: Not Thinking Straight? A Critical Discourse Analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court Ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General Author: Jackie Mullins (Gertrude Jacqueline Mullins) Thesis submitted for PhD Thesis submitted to National University of Ireland, Cork Research conducted under School of Applied Social Studies, UCC Date of Submission: May 2013 Head of School: Professor Fred Powell Supervisors: Dr. Máire Leane and Dr. Jacqui O’Riordan 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 10 What’s the Story? Interrogating the Constitutional and Legislative Position on Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland ............................................ 10 Background to the High Court Ruling .................................................... 12 Research Questions and Rationale .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ive! FREE Catholic Monthly Newspaper Liar Journalist, Fake No
    INSIDE Alive! FREE Catholic Monthly Newspaper Liar journalist, fake No. 252 February 2019 250,000 copies nationwide www.alive.ie news, cover-up at German magazine Ashley Bratcher Pages 7 & 8 Pro-choice poet’s pain at loss of her baby G See Page 6 Being a Catholic is most wonderful thing in the world Page 3 Higher Ed Unplanned star shocked deforming students’ to learn her own story minds See Page 5 G See Page 7 Mindfulness: story What is driving leftwing behind the latest hatred for marriage mega bucks fad Page 12 and the family Page 13 Liberals wrong: Human beings are not chemical scum Page 7 G The content of the newspaper Alive! and the views expressed in it are those of the editor and contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Irish Dominican Province. Alive! 2 February 2019 English bishop launches Christians in NE Syria fear Turkish army SPEAKING to young CHRISTIANS in the north east of Syria are alarmed at people in the year 2000 ‘Year of Holiness’ the threat posed to their very existence if the US Pope John Paul II quot- withdraws its troops and gives the green light for ed St. Catherine of Turkey to take over the war against Islamic State. Siena, “If you are what that sheds light on this for us in every moment of “We certainly want you should be, you will problem?” our lives.” to see no Turkish set the world ablaze.” Truth of faith And it is in the Church, troops entering Syria, given the bru- For Bishop Mark Davies in holy yet made up of sinners, Applying that principle, tal history of the England, being “what you that “we find everything we the bishop of Shrewsbury need to grow towards holi- 1915 massacres of should be” means being a Christians carried concluded that “the call to ness.” saint.
    [Show full text]
  • Mervyn Taylor-1995 Acts
    Leabharlann Náisiúnta na hÉireann National Library of Ireland Collection List No. 154 Mervyn Taylor Papers (MS 46,348 - MS 46,524) (Accession No. 4761) A collection of Mervyn Taylor’s papers from his time as the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, mostly covering the period 1993-1997. The papers predominantly consist of Governmental Acts, Bills and International Conventions relating to the reform of equality legislation in Ireland. Compiled by Luke Kirwan, 2009 Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 I. Government Acts ......................................................................................................... 10 I.i. 1993 ............................................................................................................................. 10 I.i.1 Unfair Dismissals Act............................................................................................ 10 I.i.2 Social Welfare Act ................................................................................................ 11 I.i.3 Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgements Act ................................. 11 I.i.4 Interpretation Act................................................................................................... 12 I.ii. 1994 ............................................................................................................................ 13 I.ii.1 Maternity Protection Act .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of an Application by the NI Human Rights Commission for JR
    Trinity Term [2018] UKSC 27 On appeal from: [2017] NICA 42 JUDGMENT In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) Reference by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland) before Lady Hale, President Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Wilson Lord Reed Lady Black Lord Lloyd-Jones JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 7 June 2018 Heard on 24, 25 and 26 October 2017 Appellant Respondent (1) (NIHRC) (Department of Justice) Nathalie Lieven QC Tony McGleenan QC Laura McMahon BL Paul McLaughlin BL David Blundell Emma McIlveen BL (Instructed by Northern (Instructed by Ireland Human Rights Departmental Solicitors Commission) Office, Department of Finance and Personnel) Respondent (2) (Attorney General for Northern Ireland) John F Larkin QC Attorney General for NI Martin Chamberlain QC Denise Kiley BL (Instructed by Office of The Attorney General for Northern Ireland) Interveners Counsel details Instructed by 1st Intervener – Humanists Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC Bhatt Murphy UK Fiona Murphy Mary-Rachel McCabe 2nd Intervener – Helen Mountfield QC Deighton Pierce Glynn United Nations Working Zoe Leventhal Group on the Issue of Anita Davies Discrimination Against Frances Raday Women in Law and Practice 3rd Intervener – (JR76) Karen Quinlivan QC Stephen Chambers Solicitors Sean Devine BL Ltd 4th Interveners – Monye Anyadike-Danes QC KRW Law (a) Sarah Ewart Adam Straw (b) Amnesty International 5th Interveners –
    [Show full text]