Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Monday, 20 May 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children

Heads of Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013: Public Hearings (Resumed)

11:20 am

Photo of Fidelma Healy EamesFidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the panel for sharing their professional expertise with us and applaud their stamina. My first question is directed to Dr. Maeve Doyle, who is sharing her experience of the very complex area of child and adolescent mental health. Under this proposed law, could Dr. Doyle grant a 14 year old pregnant girl with suicidal intent an abortion without her parents' consent? Where are the parents in this situation? What about the situation where one parent agrees but the other does not, in the case of separation, for example? I am conscious that this is a very complex area. A young person in care may already have suffered abuse, abandonment and so forth, but are we not in danger of loading another injury on her with abortion, knowing that there is evidence that post-abortion, girls and women do experience suicidal thoughts?

My next question is directed to Dr. John Sheehan and concerns head 4. In the last few months we learned about a brave young man, Donal Walsh, now sadly passed on, who asked young people to turn away from suicide. With this Bill, are we in danger of normalising suicide, suicidal threats, suicidal ideas and so forth in society, by providing for a law that is a gateway to obtaining something else? Is this not a potentially dangerous practice, akin to a positive reinforcement? Suicide is being used to get an outcome, in this case, an abortion. Might I say, it need not be just an abortion? If the Government passed a law tomorrow morning providing a mechanism whereby a person could get a 50% reduction in his or her mortgage once there was a stated, certified risk that he or she was suicidal, a lot of people would surely avail of that. We are talking about changing behavioural norms here. We have seen this happen in other jurisdictions which has led to the opening of the floodgates. Why, therefore, should we have head 4 if there is even a possibility of its abuse, when balanced against two rights, namely, the right to evidence-based treatment for the pregnant woman and the right to life for the unborn child?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.