I move amendment No. 13:
In page 25, to delete lines 18 to 20 inclusive.
What we intend in this amendment is to delete from section 31 the obligation, under penalty of being disqualified from receiving any benefit under this Act, to submit to medical treatment—to exclude the requirement that a man should submit himself to a surgical operation. This is, indeed, the most obnoxious section in the whole Bill. It is I think the first time in the history of this State that the Legislature is seeking power to make a man submit himself to a surgical operation under a penalty. It may well be that the Minister, with all the vast resources at his disposal, is able to find some precedent but, if he does, all I am saying is that here and now, in this somewhat more enlightened age, we ought not to agree that the Legislature should enact any piece of legislation which requires a man, against his will, to undergo a surgical operation. The Minister made the case upon the last occasion—and not very correctly—that this kind of provision was to be found in the Social Welfare Act of 1952. What was to be found in the Social Welfare Act of 1952 is provided for in paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 31 of this Bill. That is to say—the Minister takes power to require a man to submit himself to a medical or other examination for the purpose of determining the extent of his disablement. If a man says: "I am disabled and I cannot lift my arm," the Minister is entitled to say: "Very well, I will get my medical doctor to see whether or not you can lift your arm" That is reasonable enough.
Then, in paragraph (c) it is provided that the Minister may make regulations requiring a man:
to attend at such places and times as may be required for the purposes of the said medical examination or treatment.
It is going far enough to say you will require a man to submit himself to medical treatment, even if he may be the kind of person who does not believe conscientiously in medical treatment and there are people around this country who do not believe in taking antibiotics and the various pills and so on prescribed for them from time to time. As medical research goes on, we find that people, who may have objected to taking, say, phenacetin some years ago and might have said: "Oh, doctor, that does not agree with my kidneys", were proved right because it does cause renal failure. I do not know if that is the correct medical term but here we are going further than that. We are saying that a man must hand himself over, body and soul, to a surgeon. The anaesthetist can knock him out and thereafter the Minister for Social Welfare, the Deciding Officer or Appeals Officer has so ordained that man can be ripped open by the mere "say-so" of the Appeals Officer in the Department of Social Welfare.
Now let the people on the Government side of the House, who are constantly talking about the great service performed for this country by President de Valera when he introduced the Constitution in 1937, know that the Constitution itself has something to say about safeguarding personal liberties and the freedom of the people and if it does not the Constitution means nothing. Mind you, I have the greatest doubts as to whether the content in paragraph (b) is constitutional. I doubt if there is anybody, a legislator, a judge, an Appeals Officer or a Deciding Officer, who has a right to say to any man: "You must submit yourself to surgical treatment and if you do not we shall impose a penalty on you and the penalty we shall impose is to starve you and your wife and children up to a period of six weeks and see how you like it. If you do not submit by that time and you have survived you are well worth having and we will pay you compensation." All the Minister wants is to starve a man for six weeks. The Minister will say that will not be done; that he will not subscribe to enacting legislation which enables a clerical officer or a staff officer in the Department of Social Welfare to say to any citizen in this country: "If you do not submit yourself to a surgical operation, even if it is only the removal of an ingrown toe nail, I will stop your pension". If this is not a police State and if this is not the kind of thing we would object to if we heard it went on in Rumania and Soviet Russia, I do not know what goes on in the police State we object to. That is the kind of thing we expect to find in the police State. That is part of the disrespect for the liberty of human beings. The Minister will say this is all subject to the proviso that a man merely refused without good cause.
I pose this question as I have done before. A man may be told by his doctor: "There is no reason why you should not have a surgical operation. Your blood pressure is all right, your heart is sound, your chest is all right and these are the only things that give rise to any cause for apprehension." The man may ask the doctor "Tell me is it necessary for me to undergo a surgical operation?" The doctor may say: "No, you can live with it". The man may say: "All right: I will live with it." That man may be unreasonable. It may be that a surgical operation extending over half an hour to three-quarters of an hour would make a dramatic change in his physical condition. I believe it is the right of free people in a democracy to say that they will not submit themselves to a surgical operation if they do not want to. That to me is freedom, as it is not freedom that we should say that people will be put in jail if they do not undergo a medical operation.
I believe this House should reject this particular section. If the Minister comes in in five or ten years time and lays before the Houses of the Oireachtas a list of the people who would not undergo these medical operations and shows us then the kind of depredations this has caused to his Occupational Injuries Fund, at that stage and with that experience we shall consider what kind of powers we will give him. We shall never go the distance of giving him, or his successor in title, the right to say to any man that he must undergo a surgical operation.
We had down an amendment to provide that people should not undergo treatment which was contrary to their religious susceptibilities. That has been ruled out of order. It was only when I was considering this at greater length that it occurred to me that part of the treatment people might have to undergo would be hypnosis. Some people might say that hypnosis would be the real cure for one's neurasthenic condition. People will say: "That may be so but I will not have myself hypnotised even if you tell me it will cure me." I think it is a defect in this particular legislation that we have not—I say "mea culpa”—provided against that kind of medical treatment. If somebody does not wish to undergo hypnotic treatment, I do not see why we should oblige them to surrender themselves body and soul into the hands of a hypnotist or to a person who practises that kind of thing. For that reason I regret that on the question of medical treatment we have not provided against that, but the resources of Parliament are not exhausted and there are such things as amending bills.