Ms Maria Steen:

Just to respond briefly to Deputy Kelleher's question about what is to be done, concerns have been raised, by some doctors in particular, regarding the criminalisation of abortion. I would say two things about that. First, as Ms Simons of the Pro Life Campaign has said, what is central to the 1861 Act is the issue of intent. There is no legal reality to the idea that a doctor might be prosecuted under the Act if he or she acts in good faith to protect to the life of the mother while obviously doing everything possible to save the life of the baby.

There has been some discussion of the decriminalisation of abortion. That is a very worrying suggestion because the 1861 Act does not just apply to doctors, it applies to anybody who attempts to procure an abortion. It has an important function in deterring back-street abortions. It also deters abortion clinics from opening on the streets of our towns and cities, such as we recently saw in Belfast. As Ms O'Brien said, the criminalisation of the offence of abortion sends out an important signal to society that it is a morally grave act to destroy the life of an unborn child. I should also note that sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act are actually still in force in Britain, where abortion is widely available. Even in that jurisdiction they recognise that there may be some circumstances in which it is appropriate and necessary to bring a prosecution for someone who carries out an abortion.

In terms of summing up as regards the evidence that has been heard, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that there has been a divergence of views from both the medical community and the legal experts who were heard yesterday. The Bar Council and the Law Society are conspicuous by their absence. They both issued statements, I understand, to the effect that they could not adequately represent the divergent views of all their members. These are the organisations which represent the legal experts in this country and they are recognising that this is not a technical legal issue, it is a moral issue, a value judgment and a matter of opinion. We all have different views on that and it is important to remember this. Ultimately, this is a political decision and it is a value judgment.

What do we want our values, as a society, to be? I respectfully submit to the committee that the current medical practice, where everything is done to save both the life of the mother and of the baby and where doctors are protected in carrying out those functions, is what we want to see retained. I am an expectant mother and when I need the services of an obstetrician, I want to be sure that he or she will not intervene unless and until there is a real and substantial risk to my life. Before that point, the appropriate medical treatment is to admit me to hospital, if necessary, and give me all medical care that I need. The risk, it should be said, may dissipate but if it increases and if there is a risk to my life, then by all means I want the doctor to intervene to save my life. I have three children and a husband at home who depend on me. That is current medical practice and all we would like to see is that protected and enshrined in the law.