I had been discussing the right to have or not to have a family and was arguing that a decision in this regard is within the meaning of family planning. The next question is that of the most efficient and effective way that the Minister could recommend to the men and women of Ireland of ensuring that they will have only the number of children they wish or to have none, as the case may be. I had been discussing the question of the possibility of people being afraid of passing on transmittable diseases. Only the other day I had the pathetic case of a woman whose children had Huntingdon's chorea, a dreadful disease which is transmitted and about which nothing can be done. It would be very irresponsible of a mother to risk inflicting such hardship on children. There are many other diseases, too, that are transmittable, such as haemophilia. It is thought, too, that some forms of mental illness are transmittable. In such situations it would be reasonable for people to decide not to have children. A true sign of civilisation in a society generally will be when men and women accept that giving life to an individual is as awesome a decision as a decision to take life away.
On the question of the whole Bill and the attitude to it that should be adopted by one in Opposition, the Minister knows that he has much support from the Opposition, that they are sympathetic and are not in any way pursuing petty party issues. It is only logical that we should attempt to amend the Bill. I trust that Labour and Fine Gael will consider their attitude in that light and will try to have the Bill amended. Everybody agrees that the present situation is most unsatisfactory but unless we make some attempt to have it amended the Minister will have no alternative but to proceed with the Bill as it is, with all its defects. As we are unlikely to have a change of Government for at least a couple of years, and even then we may not get anything but another Fianna Fáil Government, there is no guarantee that we will be left with anything but the present situation. Therefore, every effort should be made to improve the Bill.
In the Long Title to the Bill I would disagree with the pejorative description of family planning involving contraceptives, the suggestion that there are two kinds of family planning, natural and unnatural. The sequel to that is that anybody who avails of what the Minister considers to be unnatural forms of family planning is in some way engaging in unnatural practices. In a way the Minister has wrapped the green flag firmly round him and has made it appear that anybody who indulges in these practices rather than use the natural methods is in some way anti-Irish or anti-national and is not a good Irish republican. Therefore, the Minister should delete that part of the Long Title and should concern himself simply with the question of providing for family planning.
What are probably the most efficient forms of family planning—vasectomy and tubal ligation—have been omitted from the Bill. I see no reason for voluntary vasectomy and tubal ligation not being made available for those who require them. In a way this emphasises the male chauvenistic nature of the proposals in that they are related most to the woman and there is the suggestion that permanent sterilisation of the man would not appeal to our kind of society, the Moslem-style society that I associate with this republic and its male inhabitants. However, this question is worth debating with the Minister in the hope that he might reconsider the proposals in order to make available what is perhaps the most efficient form of family planning.
In section 1 there is provision for information, instruction and advice on family planning but it is necessary that the Minister add a provision for the fitting of family planning-type devices because advice about these methods is not of any use if the doctor has not the right to fit them.
Everybody knows the attitude of our people towards doctors. The Minister is attempting to hide behind the standing of doctors—in another place he is attempting to hide behind customs officers —in our society, and he has put them into the front line so that they can become the moral arbiters in regard to the contraceptive issue. This is completely outrageous, particularly in regard to the use of non-medical contraceptives. A doctor who has spent up to seven years studying before he is qualified is now being asked to take the same role as a slot machine in so many other societies. It is a form of political cunning to involve the doctors in something like this.
I am sorry that the doctors have not bluntly declined to have anything to do with issuing prescriptions for non-medical contraceptives. The idea of the doctor having to decide the bona fide nature of the relationship has already been so well ridiculed as a proposal by other Deputies that there is very little I can add to it. The idea that a doctor sitting in his consulting room looking at some man and woman and saying that those people are bona fide about their family planning proposals, that he feels they are morally justified and he can order the required family planning contraceptive device, is so dishonest that it is unworthy of the Minister to bring in this kind of section into the Bill. As Deputy O'Connell said: “What if the man has some sort of liaison with some other lady who is not his wife?” How can the doctor make this type of decision? Is the wife to be brought in in making the decision? Have the two of them to be there? Can the wife be given the condoms? Must the husband be aware of this? Is the wife getting them for her own use? The permutations in the proposal are too tedious to indulge in. The idea that a doctor should be involved in the decision about the use of non-medical contraceptives should be dropped by the Minister. I am sorry the doctors did not insist that they would have nothing to do with this. I believe they are being used as part of a political device by the Minister to save himself.
During my medical training I did not get any training in family planning. I understand that only a minimum number of lectures are given to students in family planning. When the doctor is brought forward as the great person who has to decide about family planning methods, suitability of people, desirability and all the other criteria, it is very pleasant, as a doctor, to feel that one occupies this position in the Minister's list of superiorities. The reality is that in relation to the medical type of contraceptives doctors know no more than the next person. We might as well decide not only to have the customs man going through the luggage but to have him deciding what kind of contraceptive device should be used. In regard to 95 per cent of the medical profession it is completely illusory to create the impression that they are the authorities on this particular subject and that they have the time, experience and knowledge to give worthwhile advice on the use of medical type contraceptives. No such advice is needed with regard to the non-medical type devices.
Many doctors will go for a retraining course in regard to the medical type contraceptives. The doctor is not the expert but the Minister is attempting to purport him to be. The use of him in relation to the non-medical type contraceptives is completely unnecessary.
With regard to the effect of this Bill on the existing services, other Deputies have pointed out the damage which will be done to the clinics which have built up good personnel and established a good group of individuals, nurses, doctors, gynaecologists and skilled personnel in family planning. They are providing the only organised service available at the moment. I would not be so concerned whether a voluntary group of this kind survive or not in other circumstances. However, in those circumstances where the Minister refers to the possibility that there will be conscientious objections in various areas throughout the country I am very concerned. We know the difficulties there were in Galway recently when an attempt was made to establish a family planning clinic. I have no doubt that the Minister has found resistance within his party. This reflects the reality that there probably will not be any great rush in rural areas to establish family planning clinics. It is desirable that the existing clinics be allowed to continue operating. If health board clinics are established the voluntary clinics will become unnecessary. There is no need to put people out of employment, because they can be absorbed into the health boards where there is a great shortage of skilled staff, both doctors and nurses, and the health boards would make good use of them. It is important that the Minister makes it clear to the clinics that he will permit them to carry on and that he is prepared to provide independent finance for the sale of contraceptives because that is the source of their income at the moment. This is an important consideration.
I am surprised that a Minister for Health would put forward a Bill which introduces the whole stigma of criminality in the area of family planning. The whole proposal is outrageous. It is absurd that there should be this fuss about providing a simple and important service. The Minister is introducing a Bill that provides for penalties of six months in jail or a fine of £500 and this is completely regressive. I do not think the Minister will be proud of what he is doing.
Deputy O'Connell and I tried by way of question and answer to find out the position of medical card-holders. At present the pill is provided superficially for ovulation purposes but also as a family planning method. When Deputy O'Hanlon was speaking I asked him if the people concerned were breaking the law. Certainly they are breaking the canon law but they are also breaking the civil law. We have this delightful facility, this schizophrenic division between doing what we want to do and, at the same time, breaking the law. This has allowed doctors to provide family planning facilities free of charge to medical card-holders. This is an important point. The Minister has declined to tell us up to now but he must tell the House what will be the position of medical card-holders at least in relation to the availability of whatever family planning device is ordered by their doctors. If the individual decides that a non-medical family planning device is more suitable they should be available.
The important function of the Bill is to provide a family planning service and whichever is the most suitable way to provide that service should be permitted and available to medical card-holders. These people need the service. It should not be a costly service but it will be expensive if people have to go to a doctor, pay for a prescription and then pay the chemist. It is a vital and important service and its free availability to medical card-holders should be considered on the same level as any other facility provided by the State. If the medical practitioner is brought into the matter there is no reason why there should be discrimination between one kind of service for which the State pays and the kind of service for which the person concerned has to pay. Either it is important to give the service or it is not.
There was a question at Question Time regarding conscientious objections. Obviously everyone accepts the idea of conscientious objection in everything and where an individual decides that he cannot take part in providing a service that is understandable. However, it would be important to bring in a clause providing that the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claim to being a conscientious objector. If there were legal proceedings arising as a result of a person insisting on his right to conscientious objection and withdrawing the service, the burden of proof rests with that person if there is subsequent legal action.
I accept that medical contraceptives should be sold by chemists and obviously available to doctors. Deputy Horgan raised the point that the doctor must be allowed to dispense whatever family planning device he considers suitable. The Minister cannot exclude the doctor. With regard to non-medical contraceptives, I do not see that there should be any serious limitation on making them available. Possibly my view is slightly ahead of the view in this society. My guiding consideration in the whole matter of family planning really comes down to the idea of trying to prevent the birth of an unwanted child. Obviously we arrive at these conclusions through our own life experience. In relation particularly to my professional experience as a psychiatrist there is nothing more distressing, more harrowing or unfortunate than the unwanted child. So many of them end up in our institutions, prisons and courts. This has been at the back of my consideration. Whatever about the suffering the lady may go through, I am primarily concerned for the child. No child who is born should be unwanted. That is probably a bit Utopian but that is the broad attitude I take.
I got into some trouble with the women's liberation people on the case I make. Now it is possible for parents to decide not to have any children if the woman is intent on taking up a career. I think every woman should have the right to take up any career she wishes. If a child is born to such parents it will necessarily be unwanted because of the preoccupation of parents with their careers, and the child may suffer because both parents are out most of the time. This is one of the major factors in most European countries, although the Eastern European countries are better about allowing mothers more time during the maternity period to care for their children in the early months. It is one of the advantages for women that they can decide on a career. But when they have an absorbing, time-consuming career, I feel that having children is something they can only do at the expense, quite possibly, of the welfare and happiness of the child.
Young adolescents who are experimenting with sex—there is no law that can stop them experimenting with sex whether we like it or not—should not have a child as a result. The only way that this cannot happen is if they decide not to experiment, and this is something that is inculcated in the culture in which they are brought up. I believe they are the last people who should bring a child into the world, because this is nearly inevitably the unwanted child or the child which some unfortunate girl will try to bring up on her own. No matter how brave or courageous these girls are, this is very difficult to do. I believe that this nearly inevitably means that the child starts under a disadvantage. In recent years we have become much more reasonable towards unmarried mothers.
Therefore I would not be for restricting contraceptives. We go through our schools, colleges and universities. We all belong, or do not belong, to our different churches. We all have been indoctrinated by our families and teachers. By the time we reach 15, 20 or 25 years of age, we must be free to make up our own minds and do not need these continued instructions, orders, decisions or dictates telling us what to do. If our parents and teachers had not made us into a particular kind of human being, there is no point handing out orders. The important thing is to give young people a sense of responsibility, to develop it, and then they are on their own and must make up their own minds. I would not, therefore, restrict the sale of non-medical contraceptives.
Deputy Kelly called section 5 the joke section. It has become a joke and has been referred to in Shatter's book. It is a shame that a serious Minister like Deputy Haughey should be made into a figure of fun for bringing in this kind of legislation. We have moved from doctors to the customs official who will be rummaging through somebody's baggage. What does he do when he sees the contraceptives? Weigh them? Count them? Put them in some sort of device that will be made available? It is not really funny because this is the kind of thing that will give the impression that we are an absurd humourless race. Section 5 (1) (a) contains the phrase "are part of his personal luggage". What happens when a lady is bringing in her luggage? Does the customs man make his decision about her IUD, her diaphragm or packets of spermicides or condoms or whatever she may be carrying in her bag? Does the customs man examine his bag, her bag and their bags, put the lot together and decide that they are up to no good and that their values and standards are not the same as those of the Irish? In these circumstances what does he do? Section 5 (1) reads:
A person shall not import contraceptives into the State unless—
(a) they are part of his personal luggage accompanying him when he is entering the State and their quantity is not such as to indicate they they are not solely for his own use, or
That is a wildly hilarious proposal. Imagine the face of some unfortunate Frenchman, German, Dane, Dutchman, Englishman or fellow Irishman from the North being told that there is an Irish standard, that he is not observing it and that this is not permitted.
The Minister might provide for the importation for a certain number of contraceptives. I would not be in favour of any limitation nor would I be in favour of the crude intrusion and invasion of personal privacy implicit in section 5 (1) (a), especially if a young customs official—and there will be female customs officials—has to ask a man what they are and if he has to explain how many are needed, how long and how often. What is his immediate use of them and so on. There is a long list of questions.
