Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in to share their knowledge with us. Dr. Mahony spoke a lot about the criminal law but I think she would accept that even in Britain there is a criminal law restricting abortion, that doctors are subject to the criminal law in Britain and that, in general terms, the criminal law is part of helping society distinguish between rogue and good doctors. Would she accept that the fact that there is no case law in Ireland showing that doctors have been found wanting or have been subjected to the criminal law suggests that the balance has been got fairly right and that, in general, there is a reluctance to second-guess a judgment made by a doctor, particularly given that the risk to life does not have to be imminent? The balance seems to be well struck if the witnesses are not able to cite case law about how doctors found themselves in trouble in this area.

This is an issue about balancing risk, and the witnesses are experts in that, but it is also a question about values and it seems to me that how they view abortion generally will impact on their views about how to manage risk in this area. Are there aspects of the British abortion law that they find unethical or that shock the witnesses? I may have misunderstood Dr. Mahony to say that 24 weeks was the cut-off point where there was a question of a disability and that that was exercising pressure. My understanding is that the relevant ground in the British law, and please correct me if I am wrong, does not specify a time limit and that is why there have been cases of children with disabilities as minor as cleft palate being aborted very late term in Britain. I would like the witnesses to tell us where they are coming from because it is not just about medical expertise. There is an interaction with values, particularly as it seems that it is only in recent years we hear expert doctors in Ireland talking about all of these matters. Ten years ago when, presumably, we knew less in medicine, and I am asking both witnesses to address these questions. Doctors seemed to be happy that there was this balance in our law that allowed them to care for two patients. I have not heard that kind of narrative in what the witnesses have said today.

On the question of foetal abnormality, and I think Professor Malone excludes the term "fatal" from what he is seeking to be lawful - please correct me if I am wrong - do the witnesses accept the testimony of families who believe that where their child was diagnosed with what has been called fatal foetal abnormality, it was not just a matter of their choice as parents being respected in terms of whichever road they took but that they felt that their child had a right to be respected until their natural end? Do the witnesses accept that there is nothing they can say to convince those people because they see it as a right their little child had, particularly when we think that what might happen to that child in the context of a termination would be the injection of potassium chloride into the child's heart preparatory to the termination? Please correct me if I am mistaken about that. Would they accept that they find that impossible to relate to any notion of respect for that child?

Regarding choreoamnionitis, I am a little confused. I would like to know first whether Professor Malone is completely of one view with Dr. Mahony on this issue. I have spoken with some midwives, and the witnesses might tell me who is wrong on this, who have been surprised by Dr. Mahony's claim that doctors must simply wait until an infection occurs. They cite, for example, the Health Service Executive's 2015 guidelines on chorioamnionitis, which state that women with clinical signs of chorioamneonitis should be commenced on broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics and that delivery should be undertaken. Given that this is not an issue, and the witnesses can correct me if I am wrong, where I imagine a person would have to go abroad - they would be too sick - it appears to be the case that the current legal architecture is allowing doctors to do what they have to do.

Do the witnesses believe that 48 hours is reasonable in terms of blood culture results? Is that reasonable or a sign of an inadequacy in terms of resources? Could that period be shortened? Is it desirable that it be shortened? Would that be a help? However, the main question is whether there is a problem here if the witnesses appear to be dealing with this situation very well. We have not heard of sad cases.