Report of the Expert Group on the Judgment in the A, B and C v. Ireland Case: Statements (Resumed):7th December 2012

I have spoken on this issue twice in recent months, but I wish to make further points and to amplify points I have made previously.

Yet again, this issue is turning out to be emotive, divisive and contentious, and needlessly so, as there are central areas of agreement. For instance, I want healthy women to deliver healthy babies. This is everyone’s ideal. However, the term “pro-life” is being used as if some of us favour death for children and mothers.

What is often forgotten is that protecting our young is possibly the strongest human biological urge. I do not like making generalisations, but I can say without fear of being contradicted that no woman ever lightly chooses a termination, even when her own life is at risk. We are often in awe of stories and reports of the lengths to which mothers will go to protect their children. In the most extreme circumstances in wars and so on, women make considerable sacrifices. For example, they will go without food and put themselves in danger of death to protect their children. This is not just the case in wars and other extreme circumstances. Every day, mothers are making the most amazing sacrifices for their children.

It is insulting to women generally to be of the attitude that there is a mindless desire among them for abortion on demand. People with that belief could not be more wrong. No one considers abortion a good or highly desirable measure. Let us at least agree on this much.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to report on the option that will be chosen from the expert group report before Christmas. Legislation is the best option. Even the expert group, which was not asked to make a recommendation, but to give options, believed that, according to the logic of its deliberations, legislation would be necessary if legal certainty was to be given to doctors.
The outcome I want is that there should never be a hesitant, uncertain or procrastinating doctor attending pregnant women in this country, in particular in a crisis situation. The danger will continue to exist if we do not provide doctors with absolute legal certainty and legal protection for whatever medical interventions are required to save the life of the woman.

I am no longer willing to have such deaths laid at my door because we, as a Legislature, have failed to provide such protection. The time is long past for us to deal with the issue in a humane and determined way. Our task as legislators is clear; we must legislate for the constitutional provisions, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case. We have been exhorted over many years and on many occasions by the Supreme Court to do so and now we are on our last chance from the European Court of Human Rights.

I regret that there have been efforts to extend the debate to either reduce or extend the provisions of the constitutional provisions. They are red herrings in the context of the current debate. We are not dealing with other situations. Suggestions have been made that this is the first step to euthanasia, to the introduction of abortion on demand or a regime similar to the one in Britain. One person suggested to me that we are taking a step towards terminating the lives of disabled persons. I have had many similar letters. They are all nonsense. They are complete red herrings. Such proposals are not on the table nor is there any suggestion that they should be.

I accept there are different points of view. I believe terminations should be considered in the case of rape, incest and where the foetus is unviable, but I completely accept that is not on the table. The only thing that is on the table is saving the life of the mother in circumstances where to continue the pregnancy would put her life at risk. Could that be so bad? Could people be so against that? Could there be a husband, father or brother who would want to risk the life of his wife, daughter or sister? The only justification that could be put forward for opposing such interventions is where it is denied that there are any such circumstances in which continuing the pregnancy would put the life of the woman at risk. Some have suggested that in the letters I have received, but we now know for certain that there are such circumstances.

We do not need to wait for the outcome of the tragic Savita Halappanavar inquiry to tell us that; doctor after doctor has told us such circumstances do exist, if we ever doubted it in the first place. They exist in circumstances similar to those described by Savita’s husband in a crisis where immediate choices have to be made, but they also exist in non-crisis situations and those are probably the most common. I refer to cases where women suffer from cancer, have severe heart conditions or dangerously high blood pressure. In many such cases, if the pregnancy is continued to full term, it is known that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Currently, such women, after being briefed on their prospects for survival by their doctors, go to England for life-saving terminations. That sick women have to make that journey is not only unconscionable, it is not what is provided for in the Constitution. While the risk to life must be real and substantial, I do not believe it must be imminent. That must be addressed in the legislation or guidelines we provide in the new year. I see no justification for insisting that doctors wait until the risk is greater before intervening, as it will be in the more advanced stages of pregnancy.

The Constitution does not allow us to consider terminations merely due to a pregnancy’s impact on a woman’s health. Given that only the risk to life can be considered, the challenge is to determine when that risk begins. The truth is there is no one point when it suddenly becomes real and substantial. It occurs probably along a continuum and will be different in every case. To provide guidelines to doctors and for us to legislate will require the wisdom of Solomon. It will be extremely difficult. At the same time we must ensure we stay within the provisions of the Constitution, and allow discretion to doctors, because we could not possibly anticipate every situation with which they will have to deal.

In the past we have seen where a wording inserted into the Constitution turned out to mean precisely the opposite of what we all thought it meant. The Taoiseach was correct that we cannot rush matters. He was also correct not to try to introduce legislation before Christmas. I do not have either the legal or medical expertise to know what the precise wording should be, but I do know what outcome I want. Many of us do. I want what I believe most people want; that is to protect the lives of women when continuing with a pregnancy would endanger their lives. It is that simple. Since health cannot be considered, I want the bar determining where the risk begins set as low as possible. I do not want it set anywhere near when the risk becomes so great that it is irreversible. To achieve that and to stay within the provisions of the Constitution will be a considerable challenge but I hope that is what we will provide for in the new year. I look forward to participating in the debate.