Not only that, I fear that despite what the Minister has said about going away and thinking about it, it is clear from the last thing he said that he intends that, in future, there will not be a presumption in favour of protecting the life of the unborn. Am I correct in thinking that current clinical practice is guided by the 2015 legislation? Has that section of the 2015 legislation that is being amended been commenced?

Basically, the section the Minister is proposing to remove, which is the protection that was inspired by the eighth amendment, as he put it, never came into force. Is that correct?

I am asking this because the Minister stated that he wants clinical practice to be able to evolve. He is proposing the removal of a presumption in favour of continuing the giving of care to protect the unborn in situations where a directive is silent as to what is to happen during pregnancy. He said that he wants to get rid of this and wants to allow clinical practice to evolve. The only interpretation that a reasonable person can take from that is that he wants it to be open to practitioners not to continue with l…

The last thing the Minister stated in his reply worried me.

Is é tástáil na putóige a hithe.

I would like to speak, but thought not at the same length, if I may.

I will not speak at the same length as previously because, to some degree, the Minister has answered the question I wanted to ask. On at least two occasions, interestingly, he referred to the provisions that allow for the possibility of giving life-sustaining treatment pending a court determination in relation to an AHD. He envisages that such a determination or court issue will arise where there is a clear statement in the AHD, which kind of throws us back to the previous debate somewhat. As I have said, that is i…

I did not see that one coming.

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

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

Are you saying you would prefer the word "foetus" to "pregnancy"?

The Minister has the apparatus of State behind him. Would he mind addressing the issues I have raised today on Report Stage? Will he address the specific questions I have asked, including the one about non-life-sustaining treatment?

I am withdrawing my opposition. I am happy to wait until Report Stage.

Not at all. There are two brief comments that I would like to make on rule of law issues but they touch on areas where we may need a debate. There is a man who continues to be in prison because he will not purge his contempt in relation to a civil matter. I am on the record as saying that the man in question, Mr. Enoch Burke, should purge his contempt. I am concerned nevertheless about how, in a civil dispute on a relatively minor matter, a person could end up in jail for a considerable period of time and, in this …

It is a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

Would Senator Clonan like to speak to the issue in the section? It is his opportunity to do so. I also wish to speak to the amendment, but I am happy to give way to Senator Clonan as it is his amendment.

I would also like to speak to the section because of the particular issue Senator Clonan has raised. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation whereby the dreaded Standing Order 41 interferes with the ability of Members to put down substantive amendments which deserve to be considered. It would have been appropriate that Senator Clonan's amendment be dealt with because it relates to a proposal from the Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, the committee relevant to the Ministe…

I am in full agreement and I commend Senator Clonan on bringing forward the amendment. I agree with everything that Senator Seery Kearney said as well. I came to know of a particular case a number of years ago where a large award was made. The retired President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Kelly, addressed people at the end of the case. He said to them that this was a very large sum but what they had to remember was that this had to last them for their whole lives. I remember thinking that he was being somewhat a…

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would be grateful if I could tease this out with him. I defer to his knowledge of the Bill as he has been with it for a long time. The amendment specifically goes to an area where a person is making decisions on behalf of another person as a decision-making representative. Is that at the higher level of intervention and support where person A is entrusted with a decision on behalf of person B? The Minister is bringing the legislation through the Houses. Regarding the final poin…

This is another amendment that I am happy to support. I listened to the Minister's response and there is a certain logic in it because the last thing one would want to see is some kind of a conflict between the contents of an advance healthcare directive and the contents of an enduring power-of-attorney arrangement. One of the concerns would be that the EPA is something that is very well established. Many EPAs are not in the end required to be activated but if, as is the case at the moment, very few people execute …