James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important Bill. It is, as the Minister has pointed out, an opportunity to be provided to the people of Ireland to have their say on Article 40.3.3° of our Constitution. I fail to see how any democrat would wish to deprive our people of that right, whatever our view is on the issue itself. There is no question or doubt that the current situation has a chilling effect on doctors. Prior to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, it was clear that there was a chilling effect on doctors who were not clear what their obligations were and, indeed, a great disservice to women who were not clear on what their rights were. I shepherded that legislation through the Houses myself, through my party, which caused a huge amount of division. It was one of the few times in my time in the Oireachtas in which there was a debate in the Seanad which I found distasteful. Suffice to say that that legislation did not and could not go far enough because to do so required a change in the Constitution, yet we lost several members from our party over it. We had long discussions and many people had real difficulty coming to terms with that. I think many of us have gone on a journey since that time and I would like to take the opportunity to say, as the Minister said, that notwithstanding the passage of that legislation, it could not give women a say on how they managed their health or deal with the issues of incest, rape or fatal foetal anomalies. As somebody who met a group of women who went through the experience of having a termination in the UK, of coming back feeling like criminals, of sneaking their loved babies' remains into this country in a shoebox, I could hardly feel proud as an Irishman, let alone an Irish person. These issues have to be addressed and we cannot keep running away from them.

Senator Mullen talked about a number of issues which I feel I need to speak to. He talked about the lady who changed her mind between the time that she made a decision to have a termination and the time it could be organised. This specifically allows for that. There is a cooling off period. He talked of seven babies who lost their lives as a result of that legislation. I put the question to him about the seven women who perhaps saved their lives as a consequence of that legislation. There is no doubt that there is still a chilling effect on doctors. There is no doubt, with regard to the late Savita Halappanavar, that it was a hugely important factor, though not the only factor, in delaying the treatment. We have to deal with reality, and I will come back to that. The fact of the matter is that during the course of the committee's work, it became apparent that something in the region of 1,800 women availed of abortifacient pills over the Internet from one company alone. We have no idea of accurate figures but we know it is prevalent. We know that they used these tablets without any medical supervision or support and that when they develop complications, they feel concerned about approaching their doctors lest they be accused of breaking the law and bringing more trouble upon themselves. An issue that pertains to buying anything over the Internet is how one knows what one is getting. Is it a poison or a tablet? Will it do what it is supposed to do? In those moments of distress, there is the risk of overdose or taking the wrong dosage. All these matters are not situations that we can allow to continue.

As a doctor, I have always supported my patients in their decisions. I have never felt that I have a right to impose my moral values on my patient. I support her in the decision she makes. We cannot keep exporting our problems. We cannot continue to make women feel like criminals if they have a termination. We must not continue to leave women at risk by not allowing them access to proper medical support and care, especially when they need it so much. I could speak at length about this issue because it is one that comes to my door as a doctor frequently, but I have no doubt that it would be much more frequent if people were not afraid of the consequences of falling foul of the existing law. I commend the committee on the work it has done and I commend my colleague, Senator Catherine Noone, on what has been a very difficult, emotive and divisive issue. I commend the Minister and the Government for carrying through on the promise to allow the people to have their say. With regard to this whole issue, if we can keep the tone of this conversation reasonable and respectful and allow people time to consider the situation, the facts, and, most importantly, the committee's report, and I appeal to everyone to read that report, then I think people will come to their decision in a better way than if it is a lot of loud noise and, as we have had in the past, some very disturbing recriminations. I will make an appeal that I made here before. I ask people to leave ideology, theology and theory at the door and I would like them to think of this not in the abstract but as a reality, for themselves, their sister, their daughter or their partner. It is real and it is happening every day. While it is all very well to have a discussion and debate based on the abstract, as the Minister has said, it is when we bring it home to our own door that we realise that we cannot ignore this. We cannot obstruct the people in having their say on this.