11th June 2001
The result of the Nice referendum will, I hope, make the government think again about the still promised abortion referendum. Nice was a débâcle but why the Government didn't see it coming I don't know. It should be a warning that it is impossible to direct the electorate and the unexpected can easily happen.
Any wording for an abortion referendum would have to be something similar to that proposed by Albert Reynolds in 1992 and defeated by both extremes of the debate, uniting and defeating the middle - it wasn't far enough for the pro-choice grouping and it was too far for the pro-life voters. Albert promised legislation on abortion if it was defeated and I wish to goodness he had kept his promise and I would say many members of the Government do too. Legislation, if it proves unsatisfactory, can be changed in a couple of days. A conditional referendum is a different matter.
The deliberations of the Medical Council are private and confidential but much of what went on at a recent meeting of the council where votes took place on the subject of abortion have appeared in the press. I can only rely on the veracity of these reports but seeing that the Council is said to have been discussing changes, or would 'clarification' be a better word, in the ethical guidelines on abortion I fail to see why there was a walkout by those who lost the vote. At some stage there had to be a vote but walking out after losing a vote has caused far too much trouble in this country for me to think it is ever a good idea.
Apparently the Council decided to put in plain English the view that abortion was ethical to save the life of the mother. This is to be welcomed by us all. All the talk about direct and indirect abortion, unwanted side effect of treatment and so on does not give a clinician the clear guidance needed. Some may think doctors do not need such guidance but, to my astonishment, some years ago a doctor, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said to me that a woman who died in childbirth went straight to the arms of God! Now my God needs no such human sacrifice. Not only is there the question of the priority of the woman's life, there is also the question of her social obligations. Many, many people may depend on this woman and stories of how well families got on in life despite the death at an early age of their mother cut no ice with me.
What seems to trouble those who are against the principle that the mother's life must not be given priority is that following the Supreme Court decision on the X case in February 1992, Ireland's obstetricians will start doing abortions following the threat of suicide by women. I have not heard of one such case even being mooted in the years since the case and don't see any doctors demanding such facility. But if we fiddle about with the Supreme Court judgement we could end up with unexpected trouble. At least we have a fair idea of where we are at present.
I do welcome the Medical Council's direction about the life of the mother. In a recently reported case in Galway the pregnancy of a young woman had to be aborted at twenty one weeks due to HELLP Syndrome. There are a handful of such cases in Ireland every year and these are the women we must protect.
We must protect the doctors who work in this area, too. Reading the recent publication by the Law Reform Commission on the Mental Element in Murder I was very alarmed by the section on "oblique intent" to murder. This is where, if death is the outcome of one's action even if it wasn't the primary reason for the action, a person is culpable. Having given the unborn an equal right to life as the woman I wouldn't like to see any doctor run into trouble having given proper medical treatment to a woman which resulted in the death of the foetus. The Medical Council is correct in what it has proposed and we in Leinster House should now bring in legislation to back this up.
There was a second proposal at the meeting, apparently about foetuses who would not be viable. I presume this was to deal with Anencephalic foetuses. I took part in a radio debate with Professor John Bonnar who said the proposal would have allowed abortion of any foetuses who were not viable and he said his source of information was very reliable. Well, I have no information other than what was in the papers but I am sure this was not intended. It is hard on women to have a diagnosis of Anencaphaly made at fourteen weeks and to have to soldier on for another twenty four with a foetus that cannot survive, but those who walked out obviously didn't agree.
Senator Mary Henry, MD
