Before the debate adjourned I mentioned the problems and difficulties of women in our society having children they do not want, with whom they cannot cope and whom they cannot afford, a matter that was mentioned eloquently by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Eileen Desmond. About 50 per cent of our population at the moment are younger than 25 years. Most of them have very poor prospects of getting good jobs and providing good homes in Ireland, and because of the present state of the economy it is unlikely the position will improve.
Clearly this is something the Government have been considering: there is evidence of it in the reduction in children's allowances in this year's budget. That could be described as a contraceptive provision, a discouragement to the creation of large families. As I have said, a large proportion of our population is comprised of young people, a much bigger proportion than our economy has shown itself capable of affording.
These are problems we cannot sweep under the carpet, no matter how much the anti-contraceptive lobby might wish us to do it. This leads me to the other side of the coin, the problem I see at my weekly clinics, the problem of increasing illegitimate births, of increasing young marriages, some people forced by circumstances to marry too young and who find themselves in difficulties in a short time. Perhaps the amorality of western societies has been contributed to by the availability of contraceptives to young immature people who form relationships with which they cannot cope, who have children they never intended to have, who are forced to marry prematurely, leading to battered wives and unhappy people.
As I said earlier, if we make contraceptives available I do not think we can restrict the sale and distribution of them to married people. This Bill, in my opinion, will therefore exacerbate an existing problem rather than satisfy anybody. We will only exacerbate a particular problem which I and other urban Deputies are confronted with daily, the problem of 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds looking for houses because they are married or about to get married, because they have children or are about to have them. This is a subject that troubles me deeply. They are not bad children. They are the product of the amoral environment in which we live.
I do not know what the answer to this is. In earlier times children were forced to get married, but nowadays most parents discourage girls who become pregnant from getting married, a reversal of the earlier situation. Indeed nowadays many young people get married against the wishes of their parents: they think they know the answers to all problems and that their parents do not know anything. They tend to ignore parental advice and do not foresee the dilemmas they are getting themselves into.
I am choosing my words carefully because I do not wish in any way to exaggerate the problems I see in my weekly clinics. The views I express have been considered carefully and I express them with a certain amount of reserve. I have asked young people how they got into these situations. I do not like to ask such questions but I do so when I think the people concerned are not likely to misunderstand me. I have no doubt that the increasing incidence of illegitimate births and immature marriages are caused by the amoral environment in which western world societies are living. Though the problem is serious we must ascertain first whether people agree that it is serious and then we must ask how the problems should be coped with. Because of its nature it may not be understood fully for many years because the effects of broken and unhappy marriages and of the insecurity of illegitimate children take some time to manifest themselves. To those who are blindly in favour of the concept of contraceptives for all, I suggest that these other aspects of the matter should not be ignored. In the same way the anti-contraception lobby should not ignore the problems that result from bringing children into the world who are unwanted, whose parents cannot afford them or cope with them.
Perhaps this sort of situation is related to what has now been accepted in Britain and on much of the Continent as the effects of the post-Christian society. Sometimes people like Deputy Flanagan and others who hold strong views are the subject of derision. I could not agree with a point of view which ignores the rights of individuals, but neither should we ignore completely the Christian values on which our society is based. During a BBC programme the other day I heard the panel accept that society in Britain in now post-Christian. That concept is accepted, too, in such places as West Germany. I should be very saddened by such a turn of events here.
However, I have never been of the belief that the measure of one's Christianity relates to one's sexual behaviour, though we all know the code laid down by the respective Christian Churches in this regard. Unfortunately, in Ireland there has been a sort of acceptance and tolerance of robbery, plunder, speculation or injustice and one was regarded as a Christian so long as one did not obviously breach the sexual code. As a Christian I do not attach a great deal of importance to what other people might consider to be sins of sex, but I would consider very important the question of the injustices in society, of discrimination, whether intended or otherwise, against the poor, for example. There is the discrimination whereby society seems to favour the wealthy and there is the unchristian behaviour of people who speculate regardless of the consequences for other people. Corruption, though not widespread perhaps, is tolerated. In the past Irish society has had its priorities wrong. There is a very strong lobby who profess to be Christian but who have behaved disgracefully in regard to their opposition to any attempt to make contraceptives available. Some of the literature that I have got from that lobby has been outrageous. Is it not unfortunate that there is not an equally-strong lobby campaigning against social injustice? Far too much injustice has been tolerated in our society. In passing I make the political point that this injustice has not been reduced but has probably been increased since the change of Government.
I wish to deal briefly with the question of whether we wish to remain a society in which Christian values are accepted. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate, having regard to my imperfections, I must not portray myself as being very charitable or Christian-like but, in common with the majority of Irish people, I aspire to the maintenance of Christian values. For many that means merely observing as far as possible the Ten Commandments, one of which forbids adultery while another forbids stealing and another forbids killing our fellow human beings. However, there is a kind of tolerance in regard to breaking any of the commandments except those which relate to sins of sex.
There is no reason for the Sixth Commandment being emphasised any more than the other commandments, especially when there are so many breaches of the commandments forbidding killing and stealing. I believe they are all equally important. The Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" should be observed, as I should like to see the Sixth Commandment observed. I should be sorry if we were caught up in the apparently inexorable movement towards a post-Christian society which is now almost an accepted fact in the western world. If those in the contraceptive lobby who seek to defend it are friends of Christian values, God protect such values from their enemies. The supporters of the contraceptive movement through the methods and vocabulary used in this campaign have undermined the basic Christian value of charity.
Many of our problems are the result of the diminishing importance of religion in our lives. I will not confuse the practice of religion with good Christianity. Some of the most Christian people I know are non-practising in the sense that they are non Church-going. They are, nevertheless, exemplary Christians.
In favouring, as we must, some legislation to provide for the availability of contraceptives so that the rights of mature individuals are respected, we must face the fact that the availability of contraceptives will be widened for young, immature people. An unavoidable consequence of that will be even more illegitimate births, forced immature marriages and unhappy homes.
This Bill is unworkable, even if the doctors were co-operative, because not many people will want to ask doctors to prescribe non-medical contraceptives; nor do I think they should have to. The reluctance which the doctors have twice expressed is based on purely medical grounds. They have no special competence in the field of non-medical contraceptives and they have no place in this field.
There is another matter on which I addressed a question to the Minister for Health and which the doctors may not have considered. It is the matter of indemnity. The Bill does not indemnify doctors giving prescriptions for medical or non-medical contraceptives. The Minister has no intention of indemnifying doctors, chemists, clinics and so on for any failure of contraceptives or any side-effects of them. Very few doctors will get themselves into the situation where they could be hauled before the courts for failure to prescribe adequately for the family planning needs of their patients.
I wonder why the Minister refused the indemnity, especially if he is anxious to get the co-operation of doctors. The manufacturers are not indemnified either, although I would let them look after themselves. If I were a doctor I should be very concerned about prescribing contraceptives without being indemnified as to their effectiveness and suitability for individual patients. If there were to be an indemnity, would people who used contraceptives which failed have a claim against anybody else, against the Government or the manufacturer? Is it a fact that unless there is specific provision under this legislation doctors and chemists are not indemnified? That is a serious question which should be answered. If this legislation is not declared unconstitutional and a case is brought to court, it might be sufficient to frighten off all other doctors and pharmacists. Perhaps the Minister would address himself to this problem and assure doctors and pharmacists who will co-operate in giving effect to this legislation that they will be indemnified against any claims by users of contraceptives.
In my humble layman's opinion this Bill is an invasion of privacy and will be declared unconstitutional. No doctor has the right to know, understand or interfere with private arrangements made by private individuals. I repeat and emphasise the suggestion that before the President is asked to sign this Bill—if it is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, which it may not be—he should refer it to the Supreme Court for adjudication on its constitutionality. That would be a better course to take than to have the Act hauled through the courts and declared unconstitutional. If the Minister insists on proceeding with this Bill, when it is passed he should ask the Council of State to refer it to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. However, I would prefer the Minister to accept Deputy Boland's generous offer of an all-party committee to consider the Bill and to produce legislation that will not bring the law into disrepute. That would be the wisest course for the Minister to take.
From listening to Deputy Lemass and others——
