Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I want to speak in favour of what has been argued.  I have always been of the view that in urgent situations nothing should delay a decision taken in good faith and based on reasonable opinion to save the life of the mother.  In regard to sections 7 and 8 and the physical threat to the mother's life, while no decision is absolute, a clearly identified threat can be evaluated.

  If one is faced with that kind of situation, one has to act quickly.  It is a matter of great concern that on one occasion in Galway, issues were not addressed in a satisfactory manner.  I understand, however, that the usual practice in this regard has been of the highest calibre.  Is it currently normal practice to consult a GP where practicable?  I accept that if it is not practicable one gets on with the job and does what is required.

  Given that we are dealing with the prospect of a real and substantial physical risk to the life of the mother where the only solution is to carry out a medical procedure, I cannot understand why anybody would raise a conscientious objection.  Why are we allowing for a conscience clause in such instances?  It appears to defy logic and it goes against standard medical practice in this country.  I cannot understand how any doctor would have a conscientious objection to saving a woman's life from a physical threat.  The conscientious objection provisions cover sections 7 and 9 as well as section 8.  The dilemma is in respect of section 8.  For section 7 to apply the threat to life has to be physical and significant.  It seems to me that good medical practice and ethical guidelines would require the doctor to save the mother's life and if as unintended consequence it is not possible to save the unborn life because it is unviable, that is perfectly permissible under current practice. I have never heard of a doctor having a conscientious objection to that.