Dr. Rhona Mahony:

Women in Ireland who face the threat of dying during their pregnancy require not only compassion and understanding but good, sound medical treatment and we must be able to treat them within this jurisdiction and be safe as doctors to do so but it is always a question of appropriate medical treatment based on medical circumstance. With regard to the Medical Council and special procedures not required to be developed, generally speaking in an emergency situation such as a woman who is actively haemorrhaging, who is dying, there is no time to have any protracted negotiation about what is the right thing to do. We simply treat that woman. Hospitals which practice obstetrics have the back-up to do that. We always have an obstetrician on call and a second one as a back-up. In the emergency situation when a woman is dying we have the resources to manage those women and we do so without hesitation if we are going to save life.

I still contend that as an obstetrician practising in Ireland I need further clarity to know that I am protected within the law. Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 still stand. The Supreme Court judgment has not been legislated for although it is over 20 years since that judgment which itself is open to a degree of interpretation when it is not supported by legislation. Members should please be reassured that we are asking for legislation that is broad enough to allow us to do our job but we also want regulation and we want this whole process to be monitored. In the institute submission, which Members will hear later, and in all of our opinions we accept that we need broad legislation to allow us to do our job but that this should be regulated in the patients' interest so that society can be reassured that we act appropriately at all times and only to save a mother's life. It is a proviso of all the steps put forward that we would monitor terminations of pregnancy that might take place in this country in order to save a life so that we can be very clear that all decisions to do so are appropriate and accord with the wishes of our society which I believe is to preserve life. This is our purpose today, saving women's lives, not terminating pregnancy because that destroys babies.

In answer to the question about the ethos of the hospital, I assure the Deputy that we do not practice according to any philosophy, ideology or ethos. We practice according to clinical demand and the clinical situation. It is a science.

It is very difficult for us to assess the number of lives we might save in the scenario where we introduce termination of pregnancy. We believe we are saving lives. It is easy in an emergency situation where a woman is dying in front of us but in cases where the risk to life may be delayed, such as a woman with cancer or with a serious underlying medical disorder, it is my direct experience that these women travel quietly to other jurisdictions where they terminate their pregnancies. They are among the 4,000 women who travel from this jurisdiction to terminate their pregnancies for whatever reason. It is difficult for us to assess the negative impact of not having a policy whereby we can terminate a pregnancy safely when the risk to life might be delayed. We as doctors need to be able to do that when it is necessary.

We as doctors need to be able to do this when it is necessary. As I keep saying, I assure the committee these circumstances are extremely rare but they do exist. Doctors are simply looking for adequate protection to make proper clinical decisions to save mothers' lives and nothing else. This is a very narrow and confined context and I ask the committee to be very assured of this.