Before beginning proceedings, for the information of members I note the joint committee has received e-mails from Dr. John Monaghan, Portiuncula Hospital, Ballinasloe, and Dr. James Clinch, Dublin, expressing their concerns regarding the hearings during the week. The e-mails arrived at 8.41 p.m. and 10.24 p.m. last night. The clerk spoke to Dr. Clinch this morning and he is satisfied that the e-mail he submitted to the joint committee will be included in the written report to the Government. As for Dr. Monaghan, the clerk intends to make contact with him this morning with a view to discussing his e-mail. Moreover, if members are agreeable, we will discuss it as a committee in our regular meeting next Thursday. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome everyone to this public session of the joint committee. As always, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile telephones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting of proceedings. You are all welcome to this eighth session in a series of hearings conducted over a three-day period by the joint committee to discuss the implementation of the Government decision following the recent publication of the expert group report into matters relating to the cases of A, B and C v. Ireland. On the first day of our hearings, we discussed medical issues and yesterday we heard legal argument and legal opinion. The information we have received has been beneficial in our deliberations. I will take this opportunity to thank all the witnesses to date for their thoughtful and considerate submissions. I also thank members of the joint committee and Members of the Oireachtas for their sensitive handling of the matter with which we have engaged over the past three days. Such measured engagement has been highly positive and has ensured that our discussion has been constructive and informative. As we commence the final day of hearings, I ask that we all continue to engage in a manner that is respectful, tolerant and understanding, as was the case over the first two days and for which I thank everyone.

At the commencement of today's final sessions of the joint committee's three-day hearings, I will set out again the background and intended role these hearings are playing in this important discourse. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the implementation of the Government decision following the recent publication of the expert group report into matters relating to A, B and C v. Ireland by way of legislation and regulation within the parameters of our current constitutional provisions. The Government has stated that its aim is to ensure clarity and legal certainty in the process for determination of whether a termination of pregnancy is permissible 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 a pregnancy. In doing so we must ensure that we take full account of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. Members have elicited much information from medical and legal experts over the past two days and today, we have an opportunity to build on this detail and to hear of other issues which should be considered when preparing the heads of the Bill on foot of the Government decision. In today's first session, we will hear from representatives of the religious groups and churches, as well an atheist organisation. This will be followed by two sessions in which we will hear from advocacy groups. I welcome our representatives this morning and if I may, I will single out Fr. Timothy Bartlett, who was a former classmate of mine in Maynooth.

Before we commence, I remind witnesses of the position regarding privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against a person or persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice or ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Bishop Christopher Jones from the diocese of Elphin to make his opening remarks. Each group has seven minutes in which to make its presentation.

I thank the esteemed members of this hearing for their invitation to be here this morning. I am here on behalf of the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference and am joined by Fr. Timothy Bartlett from the conference secretariat who, as an adviser on this matter, will be happy to answer questions. We welcome this opportunity to engage with members of the joint committee. We also welcome the calm and dignified manner in which the discussions have been conducted by the joint committee in recent days. With you and with others, we want to develop a society that is truly worthy of the dignity of every person, a society in which all are equally cherished and respected. As public representatives, you carry a heavy responsibility. In making this presentation to you this morning, I am thinking in particular of the many women in our parishes across the country who are deeply concerned about the decision to legislate for abortion. We hope you will take account of these concerns in your decisions over the coming weeks and months. We share your concern to ensure that any young girl or woman who finds herself in crisis pregnancy receives all the love, care and support she needs to cope with that situation in a life-giving way. Cura, the crisis pregnancy agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland, is dedicated to providing compassionate and expert support to any woman who finds herself in this situation. Compassion, understanding and respect should be central to any discussion about responding to a situation of crisis or difficult pregnancy.

As a church, we also want to see mothers and their unborn children receive all the medical care and life-saving treatment they need during pregnancy. There is nothing in current Irish law, in current medical guidelines or in Catholic ethics that prevents such treatment from being given. The doctors, nurses and midwives in our hospitals show an extraordinary concern for the life and well-being of mothers and their unborn children during pregnancies. These medical professionals deserve our deepest appreciation and respect. In Ireland, we have one of the lowest rates of maternal mortality in the world during pregnancy. This is something of which we should be proud of as a nation. It is something we should do all in our power to cherish and protect. Any suggestion that Ireland is an unsafe place for pregnant mothers because we do not have abortion is a complete distortion of the truth. It also is gravely unjust to the doctors, nurses and midwives in our hospitals who have achieved such internationally celebrated standards of maternity care. We believe these high standards of maternity care have been influenced in no small part by the recognition in Article 40.3.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann that a mother and her unborn child have an equal right to life. This coincides with our belief as a church, based on human reason and affirmed by sacred scripture, that the life of a mother and her unborn baby are both sacred.

The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of the child in the womb should be preferred to that of the mother or the life of the mother to that of the child. Moreover, there clearly is considerable confusion about the terminology being used in the discussion about medical intervention to save the life of a mother. The Catholic Church recognises a vital moral distinction between medical intervention to save the life of the mother and abortion. Abortion, understood as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child in the womb, is never morally permissible. This is because directly and intentionally taking the life of any innocent person is never morally acceptable. This is different from medical treatment to save the life of the mother where there is no other option or where the intervention does not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby. Every effort is made in this situation to preserve the life of both mother and baby throughout. This position, which is ethically sound, represents best practice in Irish hospitals today.

However, legislating for the X case removes the obligation to make every effort at all times to preserve the life of both mother and unborn baby. It allows for abortion, for the direct and intentional killing of the baby in the womb.

It is not necessary to legislate for the X case to ensure women in Ireland receive all the life-saving treatment they need during pregnancy. It is not necessary to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights. There is another way. Other options are available to the Government that do not involve legislating for abortion. They include the option of appropriate guidelines which continue to exclude the direct and intentional killing of the unborn, or a referendum to overcome the X case judgment. We believe both of these options should be fully explored by the Oireachtas.

As a bishops' conference, we have always held, with many others, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case is not a basis on which to move forward on this critical issue. In that judgment the court unilaterally overturned the pro-life intention and the will of the people in the 1983 referendum. It heard no psychiatric evidence. It believed abortion was an answer to suicidal ideation, whereas current research indicates that suicidal ideation rarely relates to a single cause and that abortion can lead to suicidal ideation and mental health difficulties. The position it took is also morally unacceptable. One cannot morally equate the possible but preventable death of one person with the deliberate and intentional destruction of the life of a different, although totally innocent, person. How would you or I respond to someone who is suicidal in any other situation? Surely our concern would be to ensure they received all the personal, professional and medical support they needed. Surely it would be to protect them from harming themselves and to help them to come to a long-term, life-affirming approach to their difficult situation. It is our view that giving sufficient professional support and care should be the priority in response to suicidal ideation in pregnancy. Taking the life of another innocent person with absolutely no guarantee that it will remove suicidal thoughts and the real possibility that it may make the situation worse can never be regarded as a humane or morally appropriate response.

The X case judgment potentially permits abortion up to birth. In addition, assurances that legislation will limit abortion to very specific circumstances are unreliable. Any such limitation will inevitably become subject to challenge in the courts. No matter what way legislation is approached, the moral and legislative difficulties posed by the X case judgment can only be addressed definitively by a return to the people in a referendum. In the meantime, we should be mindful of our excellent system of care for women and unborn children in our hospitals.

Thank you, Dr. Jones. I welcome the Most Rev. Dr. Michael Jackson, Archbishop of Dublin, on behalf of the Church of Ireland.

Mr. Samuel Harper and I wish to thank the joint committee for the invitation to address it today. This presentation reflects our personal views, but it is also based on positions the Church of Ireland has taken in response to previous Oireachtas and Government requests for a Church of Ireland input in this difficult and sensitive area.

The position of the Church of Ireland on abortion is summarised in an addendum to the paper we submitted to the joint committee earlier this week. We recognise, however, that the judgment in the A, B, C v. Ireland case and the decision of the Government to progress the matter through a combination of legislation and regulations has moved the issue on. Thus, we will confine most of our presentation to the issues raised by the expert group report. Suffice it to say the Church of Ireland opposes abortion but recognises that there are exceptional cases of strict and undeniable medical necessity where it is and should be an option. There are a wide variety of sincerely held and conscientiously undertaken views within the Church of Ireland as to what constitute such exceptional cases. However, there would be agreement that they include cases where the continuation of the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother.

In the X case of 1992 the Supreme Court held that an abortion was constitutionally permissible under Article 40.3.3o in circumstances where the continuation of the pregnancy constituted a "real and substantial risk" to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother and the risk can only be averted by the termination of a pregnancy. The circumstances of the case made clear that this included a credible risk of suicide. The Church of Ireland welcomed the judgment at the time as the wording "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" was very similar to the "strict and undeniable medical necessity" criterion the church has generally held to be appropriate. However, the legal situation has not been clarified and statutory provisions, particularly sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, remain in effect and provide for severe criminal sanctions both for women and those who assist abortion.

In the context of the Church of Ireland's previous comments on the issue, we agree that the position in the State is very unclear and that this is unsatisfactory and unfair to pregnant women and medical professionals who deserve to be able to make critical, clinical decisions in a secure and well regulated legal and medical framework. We, therefore, strongly welcome the decision by the Government to seek to provide clarity on the issue.

Introducing the principles behind its paper, the expert group said the following:

There is an existing constitutional right, as identified and explained in the X case judgment of the Supreme Court. The State is entitled and, indeed, obliged to regulate and monitor the exercise of that right so as to ensure that the general constitutional prohibition on abortion is maintained. However, the measures that are introduced to give effect to this constitutional right should not act as obstacles to any woman who is legitimately entitled to seek a termination on lawful grounds.

We agree with this general approach. The expert group went on to highlight the sensitive issue of what should happen in the event that a foetus was viable, or potentially viable, but the continuation of the pregnancy posed a "real and substantial risk" to the life of the mother. This highlights the need for an effective decision-making procedure.

Chapter 6 of the expert group report outlines the tests to be applied in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the X case. This should include the question of whether it is practicable to preserve the life of the unborn in the process of terminating the pregnancy without compromising the right to life of the woman. The Church of Ireland submission in 1998 to the interdepartmental working group on abortion made clear the church's position on the right to life of the unborn. We, therefore, agree with the approach outlined and the requirement that the diagnosis needs to be made expeditiously and should be formally notified to the woman. Such a device needs the protection of legislation as Medical Council guidelines on their own will not necessarily have this effect.

The expert group also raised the issue of whether there should be special provision for the rare occasions where the risk to a woman's life was real, substantial and imminent. Our view is that there should be special provision for such circumstances in the light of the provisions of the 1861 Act which make the termination of pregnancy subject to severe criminal sanction. We do not consider it is appropriate for a medical professional faced with an emergency, where a woman's life is in danger, to be constrained in giving necessary treatment in good faith by the risk of criminal conviction.

Turning to chapter 7 and the options for implementation, as a group, we welcome the Government's decision to seek to implement by means of legislation and regulations, which is in keeping with the statement made by the church in 1998. This approach allows for easier alteration as developments in medical science change in the context of decision making.

I want to quote from a significant women's group within the Church of Ireland because I am conscious that we have two men representing the total church. This is from the Mother's Union and my final comment:

For the moment we must continue to keep the lines of communication open, listen - really listen - as well as talk, inform as well as undertake to be informed as we can be from as many different sources and viewpoints as possible, trust in our medical and trained professionals, and try and pick our way through the maze, whilst at the same time recognising that one size does not necessarily fit all, and that any decisions and way forward may have to be regularly reviewed as our world continues to grow and evolve around us.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Thank you, Dr. Jackson. Our next speaker is Ms Heidi Good from the Methodist Church in Ireland. She is very welcome.

On behalf of the Methodist Church, I thank the Chairman and other esteemed Members of the Oireachtas for giving me this opportunity to share with the joint committee our views on abortion and hopes for the upcoming legislation.

We recognise this is a difficult, complex and contentious issue with various shades of opinion. Our submission to the committee strongly states abortion on demand is wrong. I want to commence this morning by reiterating that view. We do not support abortion on demand, nor for economic or social reasons.

The Methodist Church, after a considerable time spent in consultation, takes the view that termination should be available to a mother in four circumstances. First, where the mother's life is at risk; second, where there is risk of grave risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health; third, in cases of gross abnormality where it is incapable of survival; finally, in cases of rape or incest.

In this complex and diverse issue, we strongly urge the Oireachtas to introduce legislation following on from the Supreme Court judgment in the X case. This is a difficult call to make. We recognise that the foetus is far more than an appendage of the mother’s body and that, as it goes through the developing stages of gestation, it should progressively be accorded rights culminating with full respect as an individual on birth. However, the mother is an individual accorded with all the rights that her fellow men and women in this State are accorded. She has the right to life and the right to life-saving procedures. We believe that includes the right to a termination when her life is at risk.

Then there is the question of her mental health. Among the varied physical medical reasons which may cause grave complications for a mother and necessitate a termination, we believe the mental welfare of the mother must be taken into consideration and included in the forthcoming legislation. If her medical team deem that suicide is a real concern, then we believe it can be treated. However, if after appropriate and thorough psychiatric assessment suicide remains a real possibility, we believe they must be allowed to consider termination as a part of that treatment.

No law should attempt to legislate for a specific form of morality, church or faith but rather set the minimum standards for the social good. The rule of law should allow maximum individual freedom and only limit that freedom where there is a clear and unmistakable social necessity. In essence, we believe the Legislature should legislate for the public good and not to suit us or any particular church or faith. We strongly urge the Oireachtas to legislate to allow for the medical profession to make those difficult but life-saving decisions when a mother’s life is in danger without fear of repercussions and to give peace of mind to women in Ireland that they can be assured that their medical team can take all necessary steps to save her life.

We oppose abortion on demand but we believe the Christian gospel promotes a just, loving and caring society with emphasis on the dignity and worth of each individual. Faced with the difficult choices to be made by the Oireachtas, we believe legislating for the four categories I referred to earlier is the best approach.

I thank the committee for the privilege of attending today’s meeting on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Our contribution wants to address the law and the ethical considerations on any further decisions on abortion. Abortion has been practised for thousands of years but the three great faiths - Christianity, Islam and the Jewish faith - have always upheld the principle of the sanctity of human life. This has been the very bedrock of our civilisation. It is reflected in our Constitution and law, specifically in the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

We believe there are three general ethical principles which ought to influence any government action. The first responsibility of government is the protection of human life, care for the weak and vulnerable. That includes the unborn child. Second, we believe it is not necessary to engage in metaphysical or theological debate on the status of the embryo and personhood. The embryo should be treated as a person. Third, in a healthy society, the strong make sacrifices for the weak. So, we are of a very strong opinion that, in demonstrating compassion and support for women, the State, the churches and society have clear responsibilities in this area.

Those basic ethical principles lead us as a church to commending to the committee a strong pro-life position. We are opposed to any question or suggestion of abortion on demand. Accordingly, we have resisted any extension of English legislation into Northern Ireland.

With regard to the expert report and the exceptional circumstances of a threat to the life a mother, we believe there are a number of ethical factors at play. With the committee’s permission, Dr. Morrow will speak on these factors.

As the Moderator indicated, we as a church do not believe it is our responsibility to prescribe or even to advise the Oireachtas as to how to respond to the expert report as to whether it should follow guidelines, legislation or a constitutional amendment. We see rather our role as seeking to provide an ethical framework within which any future decisions might be made.

Already this morning we have heard what would be described as the classic status quo position within the State - that the medical profession must, in every circumstance, must choose what is right. That is the only option that it has so when it is confronted in those exceptional circumstances with the life of the child and the life of the mother, the medical profession will seek - as I hope it would - to preserve both lives. However, as one seeks to preserve the life of the mother, the life of the child perhaps will die in the process. It is a passive acceptance in choosing what is right. We recognise, however, that there are circumstances - and there will be in the future as the medical profession has already indicated - in which one is confronted in a broken messy world with two things that are wrong.

As the medical profession has already indicated, one is confronted at times, in a broken, messy world, with two things that are wrong. It is wrong to allow a mother to die and it is wrong to take the life of a child, but in such circumstances, it may be necessary to choose what is least wrong - that is, the lesser evil. That will be particularly true when one is dealing with circumstances in which there is not an immediate and imminent threat to the life of the mother. That, we believe, is a foundational ethical principle that ought to be considered by the Oireachtas.

I thank Dr. Morrow. I now welcome Dr. Ali Selim from the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland.

I thank the Chairman and wish him, members and witnesses good morning.

Islam significantly values human life - established life and the life of the embryo. The Koran states clearly: "Wala Taqtulunnafsa Al-Lati Haram Allah", "Take not life which Allah has made sacred." This meaning is reiterated in another place in a way that should deter people even from thinking of killing as, on unlawful killing, Allah stated: "Man Qatal Nafsan Bighairi Nafsin Fakaannama Qatalannasa Jamian", "whosoever killeth human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." The justice comes afterwards". "Wa man Ahiaha Fakaannama Ahiannasa Jamiyan", "whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

The Koran warns people against considering abortion if they are not sure they can provide for a child. It states:

Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom."

Although maternal health care should strive to obtain the best possible outcome for both mother and baby, in the unlikely event that a group of competent and trustworthy physicians confirms that the continuation of pregnancy jeopardises the mother's life, then abortion could be conducted as the last and only option to protect the mother's life. This permission is based on the principle of the lesser of the two evils. In this case, one is confronted with two forbidden things: either abort the unborn child or let a living woman die. Obviously, the latter is of greater importance than the former; therefore, abortion is allowed to save the mother. Abortion is regarded as a lesser evil in this case because the mother is the originator of the baby; the mother's life is well-established; the mother has family duties and responsibilities; the mother is part of an essential part of the family; and allowing the mother to die would also kill the baby in most cases.

Nevertheless, if the mother threatens to commit suicide, such a claim cannot be deemed as a ground for abortion. The experience of pregnancy and delivery is hard and could lead to depression. The Koran recognises this fact and promises greater reward for mothers in return. As Allah says:

We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth. The carrying of the [child] to his weaning is [a period of] thirty months. At length, when he reaches the age of full strength and attains forty years, he says, "O my Lord! Grant me that I may be grateful for Thy favour which Thou has bestowed upon me, and upon both my parents, and that I may work righteousness such as Thou mayest approve; and be gracious to me in my issue. Truly have I turned to Thee and truly do I bow [to Thee] in Islam.

The Government should think of social and economic means to reduce suicide, but certainly not at the expense of others' lives. Otherwise, it would be saving one human being by killing another. Financial, psychological and physical assistance should be given to assist women who, while pregnant, find themselves in challenging situations. Society should be there to assist women in difficult situations.

Women who have been victims of rape deserve due sympathy and help, but a child conceived in this unfortunate situation still has the right to live. Of course, the continuity of such a pregnancy places a heavy burden on the mother which may drive her, similarly to many other economic and social scenarios, to think of terminating the pregnancy, but killing the foetus is not the right solution. In fact, it is a crime against this innocent human being. It is terminating the innocent's life, while the real perpetrators enjoy their lives.

I want to point out to the committee that the representative of the Irish Jewish community, Rabbi Zalman Lent, is on his way. He was delayed and sends his apologies. We will take the presentation of the Atheist Ireland representative, Mr. Michael Nugent. He and Ms Jane Donnelly are very welcome.

We are here because the 1983 amendment to the Constitution has constrained our public ethics. We should not need three days of parliamentary hearings to discuss how a doctor in a hospital should save the life of a dying woman. That should be the absolute minimum rock-bottom ethical standard that we should automatically assume from our health system. A, B and C v. Ireland requires the Oireachtas to vindicate this right, but it does not require it to limit itself to only doing this. The committee should not ignore the suffering of pregnant women whose health is at risk, who are victims of rape or incest, or whose foetuses have a fatal abnormality. As well as its other work here, the committee should recommend removal of the 1983 constitutional amendment so that the Government can democratically decide, in the absence of such restraints, on public policies that are appropriate for the Ireland of 2012.

As atheists, we ask the committee to respect our human right to freedom of conscience. As atheists, we form our own individual ethical beliefs, including on issues such as abortion. However, there is one belief which unites us, which is that we do not get our morality from gods and therefore our laws should not be based on what other people believe the creator of the universe is telling them to impose on us. For example, Cardinal Brady has explicitly told the Members of the Oireachtas that, as legislators, they should remember that the right to life is conferred on us by the creator. The committee members should think about the enormity of that claim and the lack of evidence to support it, and its irrelevance to the committee's deliberations and their duties as legislators - as opposed to in their personal lives - because, even if one believes that there must be a creator, as many of the members do, there is no pathway from that belief to the taking of any particular specific ethical position on these issues. One cannot argue that the universe had a beginning and therefore it must have had a creator and therefore we cannot legislate for abortion. There is no relationship of cause and effect between those ideas. We do not get our morality from religion; we apply our own natural morality to religion.

What we, as Atheist Ireland, are asking the committee to do in its deliberations is to ensure that whatever laws the Oireachtas passes are based on human rights and compassion and on the application of reason to empirical evidence. We ask the Oireachtas to respect the idea that individual ethical decisions should be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, with respect for the rights of others, and to respect the idea that individual ethical decisions on the issue of abortion and pregnancy should be made by pregnant women in consultation with their medical teams.

We also ask the Oireachtas to consider specific human rights issues with regard to the matters the committee is discussing. In Attorney General v. X and others, the court stated that the risk to life must be "real and substantial" but it need not be "inevitable or immediate". In A, B and C v. Ireland, the court stated that obtaining an abortion abroad constitutes a significant psychological burden on pregnant women.

In A, B and C the court found that obtaining an abortion abroad constitutes a significant psychological burden on pregnant women. In D, the Government stated it was an open question as to whether a pregnant woman with a fatal foetal abnormality has a right to an abortion. Ireland is obliged under various international human rights conventions to respect the equal right of women to health and physical and psychological integrity. The 1983 amendment is incompatible with our human rights obligations and it discriminates against women on the grounds of physical and mental health. The court has already ruled in the X case that a suicidal woman has a right to an abortion in Ireland.

Members have a duty to legislate to vindicate that right but I urge them not to pass a restrictive law which assumes pregnant women are lying. If they do that they run the risk that another personal tragedy will happen. A suicidal women who is denied an abortion may go on to commit suicide. This could be followed by public outrage and the law may finally be changed but it would be too late for that woman. It took a raped female child to establish the right to legal abortion in Ireland. It has taken the death of a miscarrying woman to bring us to these hearings. I ask Members to stop this unethical pattern of law making by response to personal tragedies and not to limit themselves to the minimal response to X, A, B and C, D and the report of the expert group. Please legislate comprehensively based on human rights and compassion. Respect the right of religious people to believe in their gods and to live their lives in accordance with their religious values without imposing these values on pregnant women who do not share them.

I should point out that it has not taken the death of a miscarrying woman to bring us here. Perhaps that was an incorrect statement. I propose that we hear from Rabbi Zalman Lent when he arrives. Is that agreed? Agreed. Members have 60 minutes to ask questions. I ask members to be brief and direct their questions to the relevant church person or member of Atheist Ireland.

I welcome the witnesses. The submission from the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference states:

the report of the expert group did not present the full range of options available to Government and the Oireachtas on this issue. We believe the option of a further constitutional referendum on this issue should not be ruled out.

What is the proposal underlying this statement? Is it to roll back on the X case to reaffirm Article 40.3.3° to the position prior to the Supreme Court's interpretation of it in that case? What is the position of the conference in regard to a constitutional referendum and what would be the intention of such an amendment? Given that we have already held two referendums on the substantive issue of suicide, and on both occasions the proposed amendments to the Constitution were rejected, we need clarity on what is being proposed.

On the broader issue of legislation, do the witnesses believe legislation defined by the narrow parameters of the X case is sufficient or should we go further in respect of fatal foetal abnormalities and mental health? What are the witnesses' views on the type of legislation we should develop, if they think legislation is needed? Do witnesses believe that the X case established the fundamental principle that a termination can be provided only in the event of a threat of suicide or to the life of the mother on health grounds?

I welcome the witnesses. We have made no proposal to overturn the constitutional protections for the unborn. Our role is not to make a decision but to facilitate the flow of information. Yesterday an eminent witness spoke about what he described as the discredited Supreme Court judgment and asserted that the process was flawed because no psychiatrist had been consulted. However, on Tuesday we were addressed by five of the most eminent consultant psychiatrists in Ireland, including the only three perinatal psychiatrists in the country. Although the law of the land by case law, as confirmed in the guidelines from the Medical Council, confirms the option for intervention in the event of the life of a woman being at risk due to suicidal intent, in the collective experience of these psychiatrists an intervention has never been undertaken in these circumstances. Why does Reverend Jones believe the Government's intention to progress what many view as confirmatory legislation will change that situation?

As Deputy Kelleher noted, the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference states in its submission: "We believe the option of a further constitutional referendum on this issue should not be ruled out." It was clear from Reverend Jones's oral contribution, however, that he would go further than ruling it out. I think he said he would commend such an option as reflecting the Catholic Church's view. I ask him to shed further light on that.

The limited time available to us unfortunately does not allow us to engage with each of the witnesses. I thank the Most Reverend Dr. Jackson for his contribution. The executive summary of his presentation specifically refers to the preservation of the life of the unborn without compromising the life of the woman at an advanced stage of pregnancy. He also notes that the women should be formally notified of a diagnosis. Is it correct to extrapolate that the women should not only be notified but also consulted in all of these positions?

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their enlightened contributions. I refer to the document from the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference, which states:

The recent decision by Government to introduce legislation, with regulations, in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case has brought the future of this highly effective two-patient approach in to serious doubt. It is our view that this decision by the Government is medically unjustified, legally unnecessary and morally unsound.

Does the conference ask that we hold a referendum in this regard?

I thank all the speakers for their contribution to the debate this morning. We have seen in the past that theology has the capacity to evolve with increased knowledge. The Catholic Church, in particular, has made allowance for natural methods of family planning and Catholics are allowed to prevent life in this way. It takes a nuanced approach to the use of a condom or a woman taking a pill to prevent life. We can also take a nuanced approach on divorce versus annulment. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose. If women and men are truly equal in this country, why are women entitled to less medical care?

Are Irish women somehow assumed to be more manipulative and somehow seen to be lying in regard to pretending to be suicidal when they so need the medical intervention and care? I would be very interested to know what people's approach is to that. We know that theology has evolved over very many years. Why do we now find ourselves not able to deal with the question in front of us?

With regard to the submission from the conference of bishops, the Supreme Court judgment was based on the presumption that abortion would be a helpful treatment for suicidal thoughts and feelings. As we heard yesterday from very eminent witnesses, the Supreme Court presented its judgment based on the case before it. I would like the witnesses to respond to that point in their submission.

The first question asked what we intend when we ask for a referendum to reverse the Supreme Court judgment in the X case. We just believe that Supreme Court judgment reversed totally the will of the Irish people. Some 76% of our people voted for Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. Our wish would be, as one option, that a referendum would give the people a chance to re-establish what they originally wished for and intended. We were very surprised, indeed shocked, that the Supreme Court judgment in the X case-----

Please speak into the microphone.

That is where we are coming from. We were very much upset and surprised by the ruling of the Supreme Court in its judgment. We feel it was unsound. We feel also that there was no psychiatrist available - an expert in that field, especially one dealing with teenagers - to give advice on the whole issue of suicide and mental health. For that reason, we feel any legislation that will be based on or introduced in light of that unsound judgment would not be sound. Therefore, our first option would be to have the medical guidelines enhanced so that doctors and nurses have no fear whatever in providing every single possible treatment that is available for the help of the mother whose life is at risk. We would welcome that.

What we regret very much, if we go down the road of legislation, is that it is inevitably the road to abortion. That will change our whole two-patient model. The life of the mother and the life of the unborn child will be no longer equal because we will be giving the right to someone in certain situations to literally take the life of the unborn. That we cannot do. We believe totally in the equal right of mother and child.

In response to one of the statements made, I might add that we do not depend on religious reasons or scripture reasons for that. We believe that the mother and the unborn child have equal rights by virtue of their common humanity, which is accessible to human reason. Of course, we believe the Gospel enhances the whole dignity of the human person and our understanding of human life, but we do not depend on that, and we would never want to impose our understanding from the Gospel on any other religious group or on any atheist.

I thank the Chairman for his warm welcome. It strikes me, as a I listen to the various contributions this morning, that we work together very closely as churches and as faith communities. Rev. Dr. Michael Jackson and I have debated very honestly and openly in public fora about faith, the challenges to faith and so on. The thread that has been running through all of our contributions and which I think unites everybody in this room, is our shared desire for a compassionate, caring, humane and just society. It is always worth coming back to that.

What is at issue is how that can be best achieved in legislation in this particularly complex and sensitive area in medical practice. As Bishop Jones pointed out, we have to keep coming back to the fact that life-saving treatment for women in pregnancy is available at the moment, and the Catholic ethical position has no opposition to that.

However, to come back to the specific questions and to supplement some of the responses Bishop Jones has given, on the issue of the two previous referenda to overturn the inclusion of suicide, the Oireachtas all-party committee of 2000 looked at the 1992 referendum in terms of a response to the X case, and it acknowledged that the 1992 referendum was incredibly confused and that people on both sides of the argument voted to defeat the referendum. It was not a clear - to use the shorthand - pro-choice or pro-life result. Similarly, as we all know because it is an easier one, in the defeat of the 2002 referendum the margin was extremely tight and there was evidence that large numbers of pro-life people voted to defeat it as well.

Beyond all of that, I suggest there is a reason we hold our judges and courts, in particular the Supreme Court, in the highest esteem and we treat seriously and very gravely any judgment that they give. However, we do not have judges and lawyers running the country, or, indeed, framing legislation. That is the responsibility of the Members here, a responsibility that, as churches, we respect and seek to assist in terms of, as we have been invited to do, offering our views. In that regard, however, the Members here are free, as legislators, to consider the wider issues.

The Supreme Court looked only at the legal issue and evaluated the situation in terms of law. As Bishop Jones pointed out in his opening presentation, there are psychiatric developments that need to be now taken into account and there are moral issues, in particular the inability to equate the possible but not certain and preventable death of someone in suicide, as opposed to the certain death of a child. Our response to that is to ask, in the 21st century, what reflects a compassionate, humane and intelligent society. Is it not that we provide the best possible care and support to help someone to make a life-affirming decision?

Finally, for the record, in response to Deputy Conway, no one from the Catholic Church has ever said in any official role or responsibility, or in any statement, that we believe women will somehow try to mislead. We have never said that. The jeopardy arises from the experience in other jurisdictions which are trying to legislate in this area in that there is a real danger of sincerely unintended consequences, as well as the difficulty of simply trying to limit legislation in the context of the breadth of the X case judgment. Any attempt to limit in principle could be challenged. That is why I would suggest trying to address the legitimate concern to ensure that doctors, for example, can act freely in the ethical way we have described and that they currently do - with the protection of guidelines, by the way, and they are not in jeopardy if they follow the guidelines. If greater reassurance is required in that regard, then-----

Thank you, Fr. Bartlett.

-----trying to develop new legislation on the basis of X is like trying to build a new house on a condemned site or a problematic site.

I will first address the question of formal notification - I know it sounds rather cold and in the third person, but that is not what is intended. The formality of it is that it would be, as it were, structured in part of the system. The notification is more than information; it has to do with consultation.

In regard to the whole question which has been raised as to a referendum, I made it very clear in our presentation that our concern would be for legislation. I say that specifically because I bring us back to the distinction or, if not distinction, the suggestion I made with regard to the real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and strict and undeniable medical necessity. I believe that is where the legislation is needed.

If I can introduce a further point, I would like us to hold together the relationship between an emergency and a crisis.

My understanding of a crisis is that it is a succession of decisions where one applies a protocol which underpins actions which are taken in an emergency situation. This is where we tie together the range of moral expressions and theological frameworks we have heard this morning with the medical and nursing delivery, the human responsibility and conscience, and the contributions faith groups and others who are not members of world faiths make to a democracy. These are the sorts of things I would like to say in response. Theology develops but so also does the understanding of embryology. We must be very careful that a number of things move forward organically. It is important in a democracy to keep these balls in the air.

Abnormality could not be deemed a reason to carry out an abortion. The question would arise as to what level of abnormality was relevant or whether the child would be a burden on the family or society or experience a miserable life. There are many healthy, wealthy people who lead very miserable lives and end up committing suicide. Accusations that women would lie about suicide are not the basis for Muslim disagreement on legislation for abortion. However, there is a need to consider from a medical point of view the grounds on the basis of which threats to commit suicide should be taken into consideration. Many people who threaten to commit suicide do so on the basis of many factors. Is the answer to give someone what they say they want because they threaten to commit suicide? I think it will turn into an anarchy.

Women have equal human rights with men. We have the equal right to life and health and physical and psychological integrity. In some countries, of which Ireland is one, pregnant women do not have the equal right to health. They do not have the equal right to physical and psychological integrity. We want to see that changed.

I reiterate that we are very keen to have legislation for the X case, which we do not believe will open the door to abortion on demand. Irish people are far smarter than to let that come in. We cannot have the situation we have now continue. Doctors need security and clarity. Women need security, clarity and safety.

On the Supreme Court decision in the X case and the use of potential suicide as a criterion, I am not convinced that a further referendum is needed. That is a personal view and not a decision of our church. Legislation may be necessary. The difficulty for medical professionals in making a judgment regarding a potential threat to the life of a mother through suicide is that the risk is extremely subjective. Previous meetings of the committee have already discussed the potential for abuse. It is a real factor at play. Therefore, we believe that while legislation may be necessary and a referendum may not, the consequences of enacting any provision to deal with the Supreme Court's decision must be considered very carefully.

I welcome Rabbi Lent to the meeting and apologise for any confusion as to time. He may make his presentation now.

I thank the committee for allowing me time to add the Jewish point of view to the discussion on this important and emotive issue. I am not a medical professional, I am a religious leader representing the Irish Jewish community guided by the strictures of Jewish law, which we call Halakha. I thank the committee for its efforts to bring clarity to these complex issues and for affording me the time to comment.

Judaism views every moment of life as being of supreme value. As such, the life of a newborn child and the life of an elderly patient on life support are of no less value than that of a healthy adult in the prime of life. While inherently valued, a foetus in utero is not deemed to have yet assumed an equal status of full life. It is an incredibly difficult and painful decision to have to terminate a pregnancy, but in certain cases Jewish law may permit a termination to take place. Where carrying the unborn to term would pose a danger and risk to the mother's life, the foetus may be considered to threaten the life of the mother, and to save her life, a termination could be recommended and permitted. Where there is a risk of mental health complications to the mother leading potentially to a threat to the mother's life, a termination may also be permitted. Any such risk would require to be assessed and verified by qualified mental health professionals in conjunction with a competent Halakhic Jewish law authority. In all cases, the decision to terminate a pregnancy would be a last resort after all other avenues to save both mother and child had been explored. In cases of rape or incest, where carrying to term could cause life-threatening mental health issues for the mother, the same criteria would apply and a termination may be permitted. In cases of foetal abnormality or deformity, the general consensus is that the foetus should be carried to full term with exceptions made where there is no chance of a viable life.

I remind members that 11 of their number have indicated they want to speak. Members should be brief in asking a question and directing it to a particular church or the atheist organisation. If a question has already been asked, I ask members not to repeat it.

I will be brief. I have only one question. The issue of suicide by pregnant women has been a theme in our discussions over the last three days. It has been alluded to by one or two speakers this morning that we may not be happy to acknowledge the reality that in a thankfully small number of cases, a pregnant woman may feel her mental health is threatened. As legislators, we must take that into consideration, whether it is three cases or 300. It is sometimes argued that if legislators acknowledge the risk of suicide for some women, it will open the floodgates. I do not agree with that. It is one of the most insensitive and insulting statements about Irish or any other women. Do the witnesses share that view?

I welcome the witnesses, particularly Rev. Jones from my own diocese. I will ask him two questions.

I listened to the master of the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, on Tuesday. She spoke very passionately about her job and her beliefs. She asked us to help all obstetricians in the country and to legislate to protect her in doing her job every day. She said she did not want to go to jail. What would the bishop say to any obstetrician in this country who feels that way and who is asking us to legislate to protect him or her?

I am quite surprised that the bishop feels we should have a referendum, to go back to the X case. Parents of a teenage daughter who has been raped and is pregnant and suicidal will have to make a decision about what they do. There is a difficulty with suicide as it is. Even with all the psychiatric help necessary, I know what my decision would be and what most parents would decide. I would like Reverend Jones to tell me what he would say to those parents.

I thank all those who have made a contribution here this morning. I am interested in the regulation and guidelines around this issue, as opposed to legislation. I have been involved in legal practice for over 25 years and identified a defect where regulation was in place without supporting legislation, a defect that subsequently cost the Department of Health and Children €485 million. We have heard a submission this morning proposing that there be regulation and guidelines. Under what legislation would those regulations and guidelines be brought in? Is it not true that if there is regulation only, which does not have supporting legislation, it is likely to be subjected to a constitutional challenge more quickly than legislation? Legislation is definite and decisive.

Article 40.3.3° clearly identifies that the State and its laws must, in so far as practicable, protect the life of the unborn. How can any legislation overrule that section?

I thank all the witnesses for coming here this morning. The past three days have been the most enlightening part of my public life. I have read all of the submissions. I was really taken aback by Bishop Jones's submission and found some of its disturbing language offensive. I was glad to hear him say in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of the mothers in the Catholic Church. I am one of those. Over the past three days I have thought more about my role as a mother than anything else, even as a legislator. I have thought about my four beautiful daughters and my wonderful handsome son who occasionally come to me or my husband for guidance or to talk about different issues. I have always believed, as my religion taught me, that there is a loving, compassionate God and that religion is based on love. My contribution to the committee will be based on what I have heard already today, what I will hear this evening and on my belief in a loving God.

Dr. Jackson is right. No abortion is desirable. In some cases it is necessary. I do not believe any member of this committee or any Member of the Oireachtas believes that widespread abortion will be introduced. Do the witnesses here this morning believe that we as legislators will use prudential judgment in forming legislation from these hearings?

I welcome all the witnesses and in particular Dr. Jones. I have two brief questions for him. The first concerns the current Medical Council guidelines. He made the point that those guidelines should be enhanced rather than introduce primary legislation. My understanding is that the past three editions of those guidelines have extended the circumstances for termination. On that basis, would we not then be facilitating a further extension of the grounds for termination in the future? Dr. Jones also makes the point that there should be a referendum to overturn the suicide aspect of the X case judgment. Dr. Jones can correct me if I am wrong but if that is the case should there also be a referendum to deal with the interpretation that the legal experts gave us yesterday, that Article 40.3.3°, based on the Roche case, allows for the termination of pregnancy where there is a fatal foetal abnormality?

Two days ago we heard medical experts, the masters of several maternity hospitals, who urged us to legislate because of the difficulties in which they operate. Whatever legislation we produce will be restricted by the 1983 amendment to the Constitution. Will the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular consider this issue in a fuller way than it has done so to date? Life is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be and we as legislators have a duty to act and to sort out the difficult situation in which we find ourselves. I know that over time the position of the Catholic Church on life has changed. I understand that Aquinas, who I think is regarded as the greatest Catholic theologian, had a somewhat different view from that being expressed by the officialdom of the church.

I thank the witnesses for their submissions this morning. I have one question. Several submissions have indicated a concern that the introduction of legislation in this area might lead to a more widespread availability of abortion, with particular reference to the position in England. Is that not unfounded given that we operate on the basis of a written Constitution and that the test being suggested here is one of the probability of a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, as against the test in England which relates to the threat to the health of the mother? In those circumstances is the concern about a more liberal regime not unfounded?

I thank the witnesses for coming here this morning. I have a question for Bishop Smith and Fr. Bartlett.

I think the Deputy means Bishop Jones.

Yes. I apologise, Bishop Jones.

Bishop Smith is the Deputy's Bishop.

Yes.

He did well with Hector the other night.

Given that the church acknowledges that there should be intervention when there is a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother and that suicidal ideation or intent is acknowledged as a genuine substantial risk to the life of the mother, I am curious and I am looking for help and guidance on how the Catholic Church would advise us to deal with that scenario, given that the judgment in the X case stated that it was only allowable where every other avenue had been explored, as a last treatment. If the church genuinely wants to rule it out, and I understand and appreciate why it does from the perspective that life is sacred, what is the option in that case where a doctor or psychiatrist is faced with treating a lady, or a 14 year old child, in circumstances where no other treatment is available? Given that life is sacred, I am at a loss to see why, if we are faced with that situation, the Catholic Church gives us no option, which places both lives at risk. I would be grateful if the witnesses could help me on that point.

I welcome all the witnesses here today. I am sure we all agree that Irish hospitals are among the safest and best in the world and that our doctors, nurses and midwives do a great job.

The Catholic Church stated it has never thought the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of the mother and that the mother and child are two patients and I ask Dr. Jones to elaborate on this. Dr. Jones spoke about medical treatment which does not directly and intentionally seek the end of the life of the unborn baby. and I ask him to elaborate on this also. I also ask him to elaborate on what he stated about abortion and the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby.

I welcome all of the witnesses and thank them for their presentations. In recent days we have heard medical opinion, and one issue many of us, including me, struggle with is that of suicide. The psychiatrists seem to be agreed on the fact that for every 100 suicides they predict, only three will materialise to actual suicide. This may mean that if we were to legislate, for every 100 abortions authorised or deemed to be appropriate part of treatment only three would have been necessary. I am interested to hear the views of the various churches and I ask the panel, in particular Ms Good and Mr Nugent, to comment on this.

I beg the indulgence of the visitors, and I will speak while sitting as I am a little too tall for the microphone. I have a number of rather focused questions and wish to direct them to Dr. Jones and Father Bartlett. We do not have exact figures, but it appears approximately 30 terminations of pregnancy are conducted annually in Ireland for reasons of threat to the life of the mother. It is likely none of these have been because of suicide, although we are not sure. It is also the general consensus of the obstetricians who testified to us that under the current constitutional situation they are not aware of any case where a woman has been denied a life-saving termination because of an ethical or religious scruple on the part of the doctor. Given the fact that medicine is getting a bit better - I know mothers are getting a little bit older - it is likely we are dealing with a phenomenon which under the legislation to be proposed under the current constitutional and judicial framework will apply to approximately 30 people per annum.

In truth, most of the objection being raised comes from Roman Catholicism, through the organised church and sincere members of the laity who subscribe to its teachings, and it is that somehow this number will increase dramatically. However, the witnesses have stated to us they do not believe there will be an abuse of the system by women spuriously claiming to be suicidal or by doctors spuriously diagnosing suicidality to impose social abortions. What is the mechanism the witnesses believe will lead to this incredible increase in abortion? I am troubled to know what it is. I cannot work out hypothetically what it would be because I do not believe the Supreme Court, given what we already have in our Constitution and what will come onto the Statute Book, will interpret it differently.

I would also like each of our esteemed guests in turn to tell me on behalf of their organisations, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Sunni Islam and Orthodox Judaism, whether a woman is allowed to rise to the top job in the organisation.

That is outside of our remit. However, we will take note of the question. As 20 minutes remain in this segment of the meeting I ask the witnesses to focus on the questions.

I will make some opening comments which Dr. Jones will supplement. It is impossible to address every question and answer it in detail in the time allowed, so I will do my best to touch on several threads running through them. Someone mentioned that life is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be. This is absolutely true and no one in this room does not know this, has not experienced it and has not had to deal with it. As professionals involved in this area, the clergy and faith leaders of all traditions operate in this territory on a daily basis.

Just as it would be wrong to caricature anybody else in this debate I appeal to people not to caricature those in churches, whatever their positions in those churches, as somehow unhuman and unfeeling and detached from their own families and the real circumstances of life including nieces, nephews, and sisters who may have to face these situations. I ask people to accept this.

What we say comes from the midst of this messy situation and is not detached from it in some abstract way. When we confront a messy situation it is then in particular that moral values, laws for society and, in our case, our faith, are critical to guide us through the complexities. In this regard I wish to come back to a question that was raised. It was suggested that if there is a risk of even one woman taking her life in suicide that legislation must be introduced. We need to respond to this with absolute compassion and the greatest professional care possible to protect the person from harming herself and, indeed, another. However, if we believe in the equal right to life of the unborn, as stated in Article 40.3.3°, we should be equally concerned about the direct and intentional killing of an individual human person.

With respect, this brings me to the core of the concern of the Catholic Church in this matter and the concept of widening the possibilities. It is a fundamental human right, not based on faith but based on our very shared humanity and common dignity inherent to us as human beings, that we have a right not to be harmed by another if we are an innocent person and to have our life and its integrity completely respected. The cause of our reaction is the move away from the principle that it is absolutely wrong in any circumstance to directly and intentionally take the life of an innocent person, which is what the X case judgment opens up. This is the dangerous territory opened up in terms of appeal and challenge to any legislation the Oireachtas tries to impose to restrict the terms of the X case judgment. This is our concern. Once this line is crossed morally as a guiding principle then it opens up, and with respect we see this everywhere not least in the State, the pressures and possibilities of other scenarios, such as end of life care. This moral principle is precious, but sometimes moral principles and laws are challenging and difficult. They hold us back from doing what we might think is most compassionate, best or most expedient. This is the thread at the heart of our concern about the X case. It crosses this line in principle. When one starts to legislate one must legislate for this possibility. This is at the heart of it.

With regard to a doctor who might fear going to prison and the issue of guidelines, as we stated in our submission it is possible in Irish law to produce professional guidelines which are reviewable by the courts without getting into the necessity to legislate. I want to say to my colleagues who speak about legislating to give doctors security that in principle there is nothing wrong with this, but once legislation is built on the X case judgment the scope of that judgment must be taken into account and the line will be crossed, because if it is not crossed the legislation will be open to challenge.

Senator Imelda Henry asked how would I respond to a mother whose child has become pregnant through rape. All of us understand this is a traumatic situation for a young girl and her family. It is dreadful. The only response I can suggest is that back in the 1970s I was asked by the bishops to establish the Cura agency. I wish I had time to explain to everyone present the success of this agency and its compassion over the years in helping girls through horrific situations. I do not have time to outline them. I have no doubt if I could bring such a young girl to the Cura agency counselling service it would help her enormously through the tragic crisis in her life.

We all want the violent person who committed that horrible crime to be brought to justice.

In keeping with our determination that every life is sacred, there is no circumstance in which the taking of a human life is justified. We claim that we must protect the innocent, voiceless and powerless unborn child in the womb. The solution of taking that life is no solution.

I refer to Senator Crown's question about why we are concerned that the introduction of abortion will lead to an escalation in time. In the light of our discussion, I ask members to reflect on a few matters, for example, Dr. Patricia Casey's research on the 79 deaths among 600,000 births in the three major Dublin hospitals. Two of those deaths were through postpartum suicide, that is, due to depression after birth.

Some made an excuse for England. Baron David Steel, the man who introduced the 1966 Bill in England, regrets having done so, given the escalation in the number of abortions in that country. Jane Roe who is responsible for the introduction of abortion in America is now a pro-life campaigner. We must listen to the evidence.

As I am sure everyone knows, the Church of Ireland is episcopally-led but synodically governed. First, I will give Mr. Harper an opportunity to say something, after which I might comment. A question was asked about women in the top position. Whatever one considers to be the top position in the Church of Ireland, we can leave that issue.

It is not relevant.

It has been our option since 1988.

Dr. Jackson should not take Senator Crown's bait.

The point of difference, in some sense, is whether to legislate. Regulation is good and the Medical Council's guidelines are excellent. However, when read in conjunction with the 1861 Act, they are quite daunting, certainly for a woman and her medical advisers, be they psychiatrists or others. For this reason, these regulations need the support of legislation. Others have referred to justiciable regulations, but the most definite way to have such is via legislation. Therefore, the system can work.

There is sympathy for the reality that gates, whatever they may be, will be opened by the legislation's introduction, but the measure of that legislation will be how it controls the situation. In other jurisdictions it has gone out of control in the opinion of those who introduced the legislation. However, our legislators have the benefit of their experience to ensure it is done correctly. We do not envy members' task as legislators, but we do have confidence in them to do it right. There must be a balance.

Senator MacSharry referred to the figure of 3% of threatened suicides that actually occur. The measure of the legislation will be how it identifies the 3%, not how it opens the door for the 100%. We need to do this in the interests of caring. It is not a matter of legislation, rules or regulations but how we should deal with sensitive and serious issues. Legislating is how we will balance caring for the lives of the unborn and the mother. It is also how we will protect professionals and parents in these serious situations. We must accept their integrity and provide the framework within which they can operate.

I have had an increasing concern in the past three days, not specifically in this morning's gathering. It relates to how suicide is becoming a third person issue. It is always a first person issue. Throughout Ireland we are conscious of the turmoil and torment for individuals, those who love and care for them and those who do not love themselves.

It is important to remember something that has been mentioned. Up to 130,000 women in a period of many years have had abortions. If I may use a phrase from another context, they have joined the disappeared. We are not in a real sense able to assess their torment. I am concerned that, regardless of what legislation or regulations are introduced, there should be an ongoing commitment to sympathetically supporting people who for whatever reason go through with an abortion. The torment continues for the individual. If we turn this into a third person issue, it is not real to the human condition.

My partners in the Church of Ireland have largely stated my opinion from the perspective of the Methodist church. The care and protection of the mother and the unborn are primary. As Dr. Jackson stated, we must remember the care of the silent forgotten. I did not quite catch the statistic of 3% mentioned.

Some 3% of those who threaten to commit suicide actually commit suicide.

It is often mentioned in the media and elsewhere that only a small number of those who threaten to commit suicide because of pregnancy commit suicide. For many years and in different ways the State has proved that it cares for the individual. We do not decide not to legislate simply because only one person would be affected. If there had only been one murder in the past 100 years, we would still have had a law to the effect that murder was wrong. Therefore, even if only one woman in the next ten years is exposed to the risk of suicide in her life because of pregnancy, it would be wrong of us not to legislate to protect her.

Regarding the question on maternal suicide, each case must be treated on its own merits. A doctor treating a patient cannot treat her on the basis of what occurred in other cases. Earlier this week we heard evidence that maternal suicide was both rare and a leading cause of maternal death. Members might be concerned about crossing the line in legislating for suicide, but it has already been crossed in the X case. Abortion is legal in Ireland for women who face a real and substantial threat to their lives, including that of suicide. The job of legislators is not to decide whether that should be the case. Their job is to regulate through legislation.

As I stated in my submission, the lives of the mother and the baby are of great value. Nevertheless, if a group of competent medical professionals assert that a pregnancy puts the life of the mother in danger, the decision to abort can be taken but only in such a case.

I will address the fear that legislating for suicide might open the floodgates. Everyone present is cognisant of the fact that any woman who is contemplating a termination is not in a good place, regardless of whether that termination occurs.

We need to approach this compassionately, taking account of the feelings of the woman and to trust in our medical professionals. As a father of four children born in Ireland, I believe we must place our trust in the medical professionals that they will be able to decide when this is and is not genuine. The low percentage of three in 100 suicides is to the credit of our mental health professionals. From a Jewish point of view, every case must be taken on its merits. Where there is a serious risk to the life of the woman, intervention is recommended.

On Senator Crown's point, I recommend he take a quick leaf through the Old Testament which refers to large numbers of powerful women throughout the history of the Jewish people who were judges and prophets.

It is fair to say that the joint committee has heard from the Abrahamic faiths an unreserved commitment to the sanctity of human life as a starting ethical principle for a just and stable society.

It is recognised that abortion is being practised in Ireland, otherwise those in the medical profession would not be, because of the 1861 Act, seeking some form of legislation to protect them. The concern of those who are committed to the sanctity of life in regard to the potential for such legislation to result in the opening up of the floodgates is a genuine concern rather than a questioning of the integrity or commitment of the moral ethos of the Oireachtas. The UK Abortion Act 1967 was introduced by then MP David Steel who is the son of a Presbyterian Minister. His intent was social justice, particularly for women within that society. Our concern is the changing ethical approaches to abortion within society down through the years, particularly throughout western Europe and the United States of America, which is creating a context wherein the future could be somewhat uncertain.

I would like, if I may, to read some quotations. The Hippocratic oath states: "... I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce an abortion ..." The Declaration of Geneva 1948 states: " ... I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat ... ". The Council of the British Medical Association stated in 1947: " ... The spirit of the Hippocratic oath cannot change and can be reaffirmed by the profession ... " and " ... this Oath 'enjoins' the duty of curing, the greatest crime being the co-operation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion ... ". The 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child states: " ... the child ... ,including appropriate legal protection, both before as well as after birth ... ". By 1970, things began to change. The Declaration of Oslo provides that therapeutic abortion may be performed in circumstances where the vital interests of the mother conflict with those of the unborn child. The amended Declaration of Geneva 1983 states: " ... I will maintain the utmost respect for human life ... ". This means that by the year 2000, in the Royal College of Gynaecologists in Britain, abortion is seen just as a basic health care need. In giving these quotations, I am providing a description of the change of climate and culture that is taking place. The fear is that when legislation is passed it will contribute and add to this and create a context which will be detrimental to the sanctity of human life.

The 60 minute time limit for questions from members of the joint committee has elapsed.

I asked for clarification on legislation under which regulation could be introduced.

We will come back to that during the questions and answers session. As there are only 20 minutes available during which non-members of the committee may put questions and nine members have indicated I must ask them to be brief. I call Deputy Eric Byrne.

My question is to Bishop Jones. There were disturbing reports surrounding the death of Savita Halappanavar.

The Deputy cannot raise that particular issue as it is currently under investigation.

That is fair enough. Everybody will be conscious from newspaper reports that the lady concerned had asked the medical profession to terminate her pregnancy.

I cannot allow any questions on that matter.

It was suggested to the lady concerned that Ireland is a Catholic country. We are now all aware that that lady was a Hindu.

The Deputy is getting into another realm now.

This issue is more than relevant. We are legislating-----

I appreciate that but the matter is not relevant to today's discussion. There is an investigation under way of that matter and I would prefer that the Deputy not discuss it.

Okay. I will put my question to Bishop Jones. Ireland is a Catholic country with, according to the last census, 84% of people professing to be Catholics. Can Bishop Jones confirm that what he is suggesting to us as legislators is that we listen and implement the Roman Catholic Church's ethical and moral teachings and that we apply them to our hospitals? If so, will he then explain, given the diversity of religious views and opinions we have heard today, how he would instruct Catholic legislators to deal with this issue?

I welcome the witnesses. My question is to Mr. Nugent and Ms Good. Given that we know a baby can with appropriate supports live outside the womb from 24 weeks onwards, where is the human right and respect for the foetus if the X case sets absolutely no limits in this regard and how can they, according to their ethical beliefs, justify this? Where is the compassion in that? Would they agree that in this regard the X case is flawed?

I thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. My first question is directed to Bishop Jones and Fr. Bartlett. It was stated that when a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment, which may indirectly put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are morally ethical provided every effort is made to save the life of both the mother and her baby. I would welcome comment from Bishop Jones and Fr. Bartlett on the situation where death of the baby is considered inevitable. My second question is to Archbishop Jackson, whose submission indicates that there is a variety of opinion with the Church of Ireland on what constitutes exceptional cases. Perhaps he would elaborate on that variety of opinion for the joint committee and say on what grounds he believes the Irish Medical Council guidelines are insufficient to ensure that women receive life threatening medical treatment in pregnancy.

I have three questions for Bishop Jones. In the event of a further referendum, which presumably would be to set aside the judgment in the X case, is it envisaged that such referendum would set aside the decisions of the people in two previous referenda whereby the provision in respect of suicide was retained? On rape, is it the position of the Catholic Church that the victim of rape, which in itself is a criminal offence against the person, should live with the consequences of that rape regardless of her wishes, including in cases of statutory rape and rape of a person with special needs? Is it accepted that legislators should be expected to validate the decisions of the medical profession when faced with situations whereby, as already pointed out, there may be a question as to whether the life of the unborn may be sacrificed in order to protect the life of the mother or is it anticipated that such situations might be determined in a further referendum given the experiences of the past?

My first question is for Bishop Jones and Fr. Tim Bartlett. Their position is that we should progress the non-statutory but desirable guidelines that clarify current practice with the two-patient model. If it were possible to construct legislation which would underpin current medical practice in that area, without including suicide, how would they feel about that?

My second question is for Archbishop Jackson. He talked about the 1861 Act. Has he taken into account the presumption within mens rea for indictable offences and the defence whereby people are acting in good faith, which would apply to both mother and doctor? Does he believe there should be no sanctions for illegal abortions or does he think the level of sanction in the 1861 Act should be lower? With regard to the number of women going to England, undoubtedly women go there in crisis. A Dublin doctor told me recently about a woman who is going for her fifth or sixth abortion.

My final question is to Miss Good. She recommends that we should provide for abortion in cases in which there is a risk of grave injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. They are the grounds that apply at present in Britain, a country where there have been 6.4 million abortions, or 200,000 per year. Lord Steel has commented on that. Does she not agree that this has resulted in a situation in which approximately one out of five pregnancies end in abortion? That is an unacceptable level. There is a 20% chance of a baby being aborted.

The Senator is over time.

I invite each of our witnesses to talk about the continuum of life, which is dependent on the preceding path of that life. That is a biological fact. In other words, if one interrupts life at any stage-----

The Senator is being unfair to other members. I call Deputy Michael Creed.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which contain much food for thought. I have questions for Bishop Jones and Fr. Bartlett. Page 2 of Bishop Jones's presentation states: "It is therefore our view that the most efficient and morally acceptable way of responding to A, B and C v. Ireland is for Government to consult with professional bodies to progress non-statutory but justiciable guidelines that clarify current practice within the two patient model of maternity care. This is current best practice in Irish hospitals. It is internationally recognised and celebrated." That refers to the Medical Council guidelines. He went on to say that those guidelines should be enhanced, while Fr. Bartlett said that life-saving treatment is available at present. These are all variations on a theme that reflects the status quo. However, the status quo is underpinned by the Medical Council guidelines which state in respect of abortion: "Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue." Is the church effectively saying it is happy to have the current carte blanche arrangement as envisaged for treatment of the threat to the life of the mother, unfettered by any legislation or regulation that, for example, imposes an obligation on medical practitioners to consult or seek a second opinion or impose restrictions regarding the time limit within which a termination can take place? Is the level of disdain for the legislator, in seeking to rein in and put a framework on those guidelines, such that they feel we should not trespass in this area at all?

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. My first question is for Bishop Jones and Fr. Bartlett. How widely have they consulted with women in the church? If they have, what is the mechanism for such consultation on this significant issue of women's health? Bishop Jones referred to the distinction between medical intervention and abortion. Will he explain what that distinction is? Does he agree with comments made to the committee by one of the legal experts during these hearings that the definition of life is a life that is capable of being born, or does he believe life begins at the moment of conception? Some of the other churches have been clear about their position on this, so could Bishop Jones clarify that?

Over the last two days we have heard the consensus from independent legal and medical experts on the need for legislation for the X case. Atheist Ireland is correct to point out that three days of parliamentary hearings should not be necessary to discuss how the law should allow a doctor to save the life of a dying pregnant woman. I have a question for the Catholic representatives in that context - that is, those who oppose legislation for the X case. Is that opposition not based on an underlying belief in the innate deceitfulness of women, and misogyny? Second, they spoke this morning about compassion. Where is their compassion for the teenage girls who are victims of rape or incest, who become pregnant as a result and are suicidal as a result of that, as we saw in the X case and subsequently? Finally, can they say what business it is of a church whose members are entirely and exclusively male and celibate to pronounce in such absolutist terms on such critical issues regarding the reproductive rights and health of women and girls?

On a point of clarification, the church is made up of both men and women. I call Senator White.

The hearings of the last few days have been a momentous event. An equally momentous event was when we passed legislation for civil partnerships. It was a very moving occasion.

My question is for the representatives of the Catholic Church. If priests were allowed to marry, as clergy from other religious institutions can, and if they had daughters, perhaps if a daughter was raped and abused they might feel differently about demanding and insisting that she carry the pregnancy through to delivery of the baby. To be honest, I find it difficult to accept that men can speak in extraordinarily forthright terms, as if they know everything. How do they know what women feel if they are raped and abused and become pregnant as a result?

I am sorry that I cannot respond to every question. I will try to get a thread running through them. Are we asking legislators to legislate for a Catholic morality in this country? The simple answer is "Absolutely not". As I said earlier, the principle of the right to life is a human rights principle. That is the starting point of all of this discussion. Somebody asked about the distinction we make between licit medical intervention and abortion. Medical intervention to save the life of the mother is possible, as we clarified in the opening statement. The member might not have been present at the time. The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of the mother should be preferred over that of the child or that the life of the child should be preferred over that of the mother. We have stated repeatedly this morning that medical intervention to save the life of the mother is morally licit, as long as every effort is made to continue to protect and save the life of the child even if in practical circumstances that may lead to the unintended death of the child. Some people have suggested that this distinction between direct and indirect and intended and unintended is some type of Catholic moral principle. Go to our courts. Our law acknowledges that moral culpability or legal consequence is weighed up against intent and direct or indirect consequences. This has nothing, in that sense, to do with specifically Catholic moral theology.

With respect, this is the first stage of this debate in which I have been caricatured. As I mentioned earlier, we should avoid that type of caricature. It might surprise members to know that I know many women and there are many women whom I love dearly in my life, and if they had to face these circumstances I would feel deeply about it. I ask members not to caricature us, just as I and Bishop Jones have not caricatured anybody else. No woman has ever called me a misogynist.

I wish to make a brief response and try to draw a few things together. With regard to the 1861 Act, the continuing reality of automatic sanctions is tremendously daunting.

The committee heard that earlier about people on the front line of delivery - medics and nursing staff.

On the sufficiency or otherwise of the Irish Medical Council guidelines, our point is that in the absence of legislation, they remain guidelines; the legislation will underpin that and give confidence to those people for whom the guidelines are not enacted. That is another side of the argument that must be considered.

There was also a question on the range of opinion within the Church of Ireland. The first point I articulated was the question of real and substantial risk and that would be the central position. To be fair, however, there would be fluidity on a lesser or greater sympathy regarding suicide and aspects of health. We speak as individuals from within the church. The Church of Ireland must make decisions synodically and within the timeframe we had that was not possible. We are not blaming anyone for this but we are saying that we are trying in some way to represent aspects of thought within the Church of Ireland and I thank the committee for giving us a hearing.

A member asked us where the compassion is. Perhaps in my presentation seeking the rights of the mother, I gave an impression of a lack of compassion in the Methodist Church for the unborn. I ask the committee to forgive me for that because in my own heart personally and having spoken to many Methodists across the land, no one is fully happy with the position we take because we have compassion for the unborn, I assure the committee of that. We support all possible life saving measures. It is a desperate situation and I would not want to be in the medical profession and have to make these choices. This is a difficult issue and we have compassion for everyone involved.

Apart from expressing gratitude on behalf of the Moderator and myself for being asked to be present today, one ethical principle has not yet been mentioned. That principle is foundational to all the Abrahamic faiths, the principle of hospitality. That practice is foundational to the ethos of our faiths and is particularly manifest in the Middle East and the Islamic and Jewish traditions. What is practised by the mother in her care and love for her child, by the extended family for the mother, by the community for that family which historically has lain at the roots of some of the best aspects of what constitutes Irishness. I would encourage that in whatever legislation is necessary, that principle of hospitality is woven into the fabric of such decision making.

I would like to say that we cannot give the green light to victims of rape that they can go for an abortion but where psychological problems and, likewise, physical problems, are considered by medical doctors and they decide the only alternative to come out of the situation is abortion, I would support that.

I will answer the question I was asked about whether I was being prescriptive. I am being the opposite of prescriptive. I am saying individual ethical decisions must be taken by individuals and that individual ethical decisions about pregnancy must be taken by the pregnant woman in conjunction and consultation with her medical team. The committee might be confused by the point I was making that the legislators are restrained by the 1983 amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case. I wish that was not the case, legislators should not be restrained and should be able to pass laws based on the needs of Ireland today but until such time as we get rid of the 1983 amendment, that is not possible.

On the question of late abortions, if the foetus is viable, it will be delivered as a baby. That is what happens in hospitals; there are Caesarian deliveries every day in our hospitals so we should not invent problems that do not exist.

His proposal was X without time limits so does he now not agree with X without time limits?

There is huge confusion about terminology out there. I read in the newspapers yesterday about direct abortion, which is the deliberate destruction of human life. As Fr. Bartlett has pointed out, the situation where in treating the mother with every possible medical attention, a child dies, that is not abortion in our view. That must be clarified because there is confusion on this issue.

We do not need to legislate for abortion to protect women's lives. We do not need to legislate for abortion to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights. In our view, abortion is always morally wrong because it takes the human life; there must be another way.

I thank all members of the churches and the atheist organisations for being here this morning .