Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

At the outset, I extend my own personal sympathies to Praveen Halappanavar and his family, and the family of the late Savita, on what can only be described as a tragic loss for all of the family. It is indescribable, I agree with the Minister of State in that regard. We all agree the family deserve answers and to get to the truth. We need an investigation that pursues the truth and identifies it. Whatever the truth is and however uncomfortable it might be for everyone concerned, the truth must be established, the facts nailed down and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

I am deeply concerned the investigation that has been established could hit a wall very quickly. The fact it was initially established with three representatives from the hospital concerned was a major mistake. There should have been direct consultation with Praveen Halappanavar himself. His solicitor has stated today that even the removal of those three people from the team will not suffice. If Savita's widower does not co-operate with the investigation, it could run into the sand quickly, which would be a major problem. I urge the Minister of State and the Minister for Health to take personal ownership of the issue and to work in whatever way they can to get Praveen Halappanavar's support for the investigation because that co-operation is essential. If he refuses to extend consent for the medical files to be reviewed, that could open a potential legal minefield. We cannot allow that situation to happen.

On the issue of substance, Deputy Kelleher has got to the point: we are dealing with Article 40.3.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case in 1992 and, of course, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the A, B and C case in 2010. The Government now has the report of the expert group chaired by Mr. Justice Ryan, and I welcome that along with the commitment that it will be considered by Cabinet next week and published immediately.

Apart from the tragic death of Ms Savita Halappanavar, what has really made me sit up and take notice in recent days was listening to the practitioners, including the masters of the various maternity hospitals. When those into whose care we entrust pregnant women are telling us they need greater clarity in the application of the outcome of the X case and the application of our constitutional provisions on the right to life, we have a duty to sit up and take notice. Clearly the existing guidelines are not deemed to be adequate by those practising in this field. When one examines it and thinks about it, one can understand why. The X case deals with a real and substantial risk to the life as opposed to the health of the pregnant woman. One can understand the problem for medics because clinicians will need to decide when a woman's deteriorating health situation becomes a matter of life or death. In some cases, regrettably, it will become a matter of life or death. However, at what point do they feel sufficiently confident to intervene and do what is necessary to save the life of that woman in that situation? That is a real problem. As someone who holds pro-life views - I believe the majority of Irish people would still regard themselves as bring pro-life - I believe there is no question but that practitioners must be given the capacity and whatever legal clarity is required to ensure they can intervene and do whatever is necessary to save the life of the mother. I believe that reflects the views of the majority of Irish people on this issue.

Other issues come into the debate, particularly the issues of suicide as addressed in the X case, which will be more contentious. In particular it will be far more difficult to deal with the safeguards to be provided for in legislation, guidelines or regulations. The other issue raised in this debate but not directly relevant to the X case is the broader set of criteria whereby some people wish to allow for terminations to take place. This is an issue on which we should put politics as normal to one side. We all have our personal views on this and parties are coming from different historical perspectives and have taken different roles in various campaigns through the years. Clearly, when those who are directly involved in the care of pregnant women are telling us that something additional needs to be done, that is good enough for me. Something needs to be done to give additional clarity to the circumstances under which they are legally empowered to intervene and do what is necessary to save the life of the woman. For me that is the fundamental issue. Beyond that we will have a very difficult debate, but let us have that debate and I accept there is a duty for us to do what is required of us as legislators.

See this speech in context