Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the chance to speak on the Bill and I, too, welcome the tone of the debate in this Chamber thus far. Since Thursday, the debate has generally been respectful of the very divergent views on this divisive subject. The subject goes far beyond the traditional political battle lines in this Chamber. The work done by the Joint Committee on Health and Children is a significant element in contributing to the tone and informed nature of the debate. The Chairman and members of that committee deserve credit for the way in which they ran their hearings and facilitated people's views. They also deserve credit for allowing for the airing of the experts' views that we require to make a judgment on this Bill. As we conclude the parliamentary discussion on this Bill, I hope we will maintain the air of respect for divergent views. As Deputy Seán Kyne said, this debate will continue far beyond the implementation of the Bill. It is now very likely that it will be implemented. I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Michael McGrath that robust monitoring will be required when the Bill is implemented to ensure its provisions are not abused or extended beyond the intended scope.

I heard many Government Deputies, particularly Fine Gael Deputies, cite today their personal respect for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. They expressed the view that the Taoiseach and the Minister would never want to see this Bill go beyond its intended purpose, and I accept that. I am a constituency colleague of the Taoiseach and accept his bona fides on this. However, it is clear that there are Deputies on the Government side, including in the Labour Party, who have stated in their manifestoes for many years that they regard this type of legislation as a stepping stone to a more open regime. The difficulty will arise when the current Taoiseach and Minister are no longer in the House and when future Ministers and Taoisigh are in office. It is then that the legislation could open the doors to the liberalisation of the abortion regime. What are the intentions of those introducing the Bill? I fear that once the door is opened, those intentions will be trampled upon.

Sections 7 and 8 of this Bill will bring legal clarity to the treatment of a pregnant woman whose life is at risk arising from a physical illness. There was no disagreement during the hearings on these provisions and the need to tighten them. There is an agreed medical understanding of the path of a physical illness, and there is generally agreement on a relevant and effective treatment path to restore the health of the woman in question. However, this does not apply regarding section 9. The hearings demonstrated that there are considerable professional differences when it comes to understanding of the causes of suicide and, consequently, there is no professional agreement on detecting and treating the underlying causes.

I absolutely agree with Deputy Joe McHugh that we should assist those with suicidal intent in presenting themselves immediately to the health service, in whatever condition, for treatment, but the reality is that the country is undergoing a crisis in regard to suicide and mental illness. One reason is that we do not have an agreed understanding of the causes of suicide and what would bring somebody to the suicidal state. If we did, we would intervene to prevent it. Nobody in this House wants anyone to experience the pain that suicide brings to a family. We would do everything to prevent suicide if we understood it and if we were in a position to work with those who seem to get to the point at which they feel there is no support for them.

In this legislation, we are being asked to end unborn human lives - the legislation uses the phrase "to end an unborn life" - as a treatment for a condition that we do not properly understand. As a legislator and given the professional and medical vacuum, I cannot bring myself to support that concept. We must make a decision on this as legislators today. Judges can make a decision on legal arguments. There is a considerable legal vacuum also. Various medical professionals may have medical disagreements but legislators are being asked to allow the legal ending of human life. In the absence of legal and medical agreement, I cannot bring myself to do that. I cannot support the Bill as long as this measure is in place and as long as the disagreement continues.

There are other difficulties with the legislation despite all the work that has gone into its drafting. The language is still considerably loose. Loose language in legislation will lead to avenues being pursued that people might not have envisaged. In legislation that proposes to end human life, one cannot do that. The language associated with term limits is still very loose, and the language of the provision dealing with the potential to bring a foetus on the cusp of viability to early birth is very vague. The Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, more or less admitted this some weeks ago on "The Week in Politics" when he stated that babies with disabilities could be born as a result of the measure. We cannot have that in this legislation.

I agree with the opinion of the former Director of Public Prosecutions. I stated the opinion before he did. In section 9 and elsewhere, we are unbalancing the principle outlined in Article 40.3.3°, namely, the equal right to life of the mother and child.

Legislators do not have the comfort of the Judiciary which can publish an opinion and then have it parsed by legal experts. The burden of acting on that opinion and influencing the lives of the unborn or born falls on us. That is a heavy burden in this context. Given the medical and legal vacuums, I will not be able to and cannot support the Bill.

See this speech in context