James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I reject the Deputy's contention that this was a barbaric act, although its use in certain circumstances may well transpire to have been utterly inappropriate. It was a standard procedure at one time and it was reintroduced to certain Irish hospitals in the 1940s as a clinical response to the limitation imposed by specifically Catholic religious and ideological circumstances. The primary reasons were the fact that contraception and sterilisation for the prevention of pregnancy was illegal, and the safety of repeat Caesarean sections in the period was unproven. The method was used in the majority of cases as an emergency response to obstructed labour in women suffering from mild to moderate disproportion, and as such it was an appropriate clinical intervention. It was never proposed as an alternative to Caesarean section, rates of which rose steadily in the 1950s and 1960s. It was a safer intervention in cases of mild to moderate disproportion, with a minimal maternal mortality rate and a lower foetal mortality rate than Caesarean section at the time.

It was an exceptional intervention used, on average, in 0.35% of deliveries in the Coombe and National Maternity hospitals, where the usage was highest. However, the persistence of the procedure at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda until 1984 runs contrary to its decline elsewhere in the country from the middle 1960s and I have little doubt that it was used very inappropriately in several instances. That is why the report is being currently compiled and why the Attorney General will study it. When it comes back to me I will be in a better position to respond.

See this speech in context