Professor Mary Higgins:

There are two issues here, relating to ring-fencing and future-proofing. I will give a very practical example of what Dr. Mahony was talking about in the context of having beds and spaces dedicated to women. I recall working in a general hospital, having just come from working at a maternity hospital where there was a dedicated operating theatre. One night, a lady presented with ovarian torsion, which is where the ovary cuts off its blood supply, resulting in a major gynaecological emergency. I was used to working at a hospital where I could bring such a woman straight to theatre after, obviously, asking for her consent because she has autonomy. I could advise her about the clinical necessity and bring her to theatre. At the general hospital, I had to go to an operating theatre and advocate for this woman against orthopaedic, general and vascular surgery all looking for the same space. Ring-fencing, therefore, is incredibly important for women’s healthcare which, as the Senator pointed out, was not suitably looked after for many years.

The second issue relates to future-proofing. We earlier gave the example of the Billings method, which is no longer used. Symphysiotomy was absolutely unacceptable in light of everything we have learned from the women who advocated against it. The Senator is correct that we have clear legal guidelines and frameworks we can work with now. They are not perfect and I will, I hope, return to talk to the committee about the issues we have with them, but we can work within them. It is much easier than it was under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and even than before that was law. We are constantly evolving, and I do not know what procedures we currently carry out that will not be acceptable in 20 years. That is what the phrase means to me.