Dr. Jacqueline Montwill:

There is a sentence that this Bill is about saving lives. It is not about saving lives because we want to work to save the life of anyone who is suicidal regardless of the costs. This Bill is about providing abortion procedures.

I remind the committee that the IMO defeated all those motions and during that time a motion was put to the IMO to change the words "abortion procedures" and to put instead "evidence-based, life saving treatment" and that was refused. All of the motions that wanted abortion procedures were defeated by the IMO and the ICGP.

Our survey was the equivalent of saying to colleagues that this is not right and asking what they think of what the Government is doing, regardless of any opinion of it being pro-choice or pro-life. We sent our letters to consultant specialists in the medical directory at their own addresses they had put in. It is my opinion that half of those letters did not get to the right address because the consultant had most likely left any home address. I think there are many more than 120 respondents who think we should not be involved in this because there is no basis in the medical literature available. That is the key; it is nothing to do with religion or being pro-choice, it is about the evidence base.

The actuarial equivalent number of babies is 35 to save one woman. The last question related to a humane response to a victim of rape and her family. Patients who have mental illness are heroic because society does not understand them, they carry a stigma and are fighting a losing battle and we must do our best to advocate for mental illness.

Moreover, sometimes the circumstances of a patient's family, home and social life are horrific. I would say to every patient: "I am terribly sorry this has happened to you and while we cannot stop what has happened, we can ensure you receive the best available treatment and support and we will take care of you." That is what should have happened in the case of the 14 year old girl. It may appear that we will lock up the girl, that is not the case. The reality is that when the adjustment reaction settles, she may no longer be suicidal. What is not being understood in this debate is that suicidality reduces, sometimes only with psychological support. A problem shared is a problem halved. That is the cliché and the reason people offload. As our colleagues will say, if the patient consents, members of the family will be contacted and the boyfriend or husband who may not be supportive may become involved in the treatment, which is very important.

Are we legislating for one in 500,000 women? The deaths of one in 500,000 women from suicidality are due to mental illness. Any cases members will have heard of that have come into the public domain - I do not know anything personally about these cases but I have read about them in the newspaper - are cases of mental illness where there was a systems failure. If there was a difficulty, abortion would not have been appropriate for any of the women in question and would certainly not have saved their lives.