Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Buttimer. I try to create as much enjoyment as possible in other spheres as well.

I am conscious, however, that we are having this debate in the aftermath of the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. I do not know enough about the circumstances of her death to comment on it. Those circumstances have not been made public, but I hope the findings of a full investigation will be made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas so that we can come to a judgment as to how to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy, if prevention is possible. I do not know that either. It is sad that a tragedy has been the catalyst for this debate. Of course, the bigger issue is the report of the expert group which was heralded long before the death of Ms Halappanavar.

I am certainly not in favour of abortion. I never have been. I am not in favour of abortion for social reasons or as an optional extra. I believe the people, in their response to previous referendums, were also thinking along those lines. I studied the judgment of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the judgment of the people in the referendums. It is clear to me that the Supreme Court expected legislation to follow that would give protection, security and assurance to the medical profession, to the people and to pregnant women, who were the people directly affected then and would be in the future. Everyone in the country has had a mother. Some of our mothers are, gladly, still alive.

Like other Deputies, I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters on both sides of this argument. No matter which side we come down on we will annoy somebody. Our duty as legislators, however, is to make the right decision, having regard to all the evidence available to us, and to read up as much as possible on the issues. To have lived through the controversies of the past is also an advantage.

I have no doubt of what was expected of the Oireachtas by the Supreme Court. There was an expectation of legislation to protect the three elements I have referred to. Similarly, the Supreme Court did not intend that legislation should give effect to widespread availability of abortion, for social reasons or whatever. I do not think that was anticipated. By rejecting two proposed amendments to delete the element of suicide, the people made it clear they were not happy to delete suicide as a possible ground for intervention in pregnancy. In the backs of their minds, the people remembered that there may be women who would find themselves faced with a situation they could not tolerate. People have varying capabilities when it comes to dealing with pain and stress. Some people can deal adequately with a great deal of pain and stress and some people can not. Should we legislate for only one set of people? We must legislate for all. It is our job to legislate for all creeds, shades of opinion and colours, without exception. I hope we will do that.

I congratulate the members of the expert group on an excellent report. They have laid out the options quite clearly. My interpretation of what they have said is that we must legislate. We cannot exclude the possibility of suicide. It is clearly laid out for us to accept or reject it, but we cannot reject it.

The people have said they do not want abortion to be generally available ad lib for everyone in all circumstances. The women, the mothers and the pregnant women of Ireland do not want that either. However, where a rape takes place, particularly statutory rape, the final decision as to whether the unfortunate child should be forced to carry on with the pregnancy should not be taken by a third party, whether that is a court, legislators or the medical profession. The parents, because the child is a minor, and the girl herself should have some opinion as to what should happen. They are the people who will have to live with the aftermath and the consequences.

There are those who will say the unborn child had nothing to do with the rape and committed no crime. That is true and I am conscious of that, but neither had the victim of the rape. What should we do, as bystanders who are removed from the situation? Should we make the harsh decision that what happened was a bit unfortunate but that the woman must accept the consequences of it? That is not within our remit and we should not do it. It would be very harsh to do that.

I am quite clear that the opinion of the pregnant woman, or the parents in the case of a minor, should have some bearing on the outcome. I am not going down the road of free choice, but there must be some regard for the view of the woman or girl who is pregnant. After all, when a man goes into a hospital for a procedure how would he like it if the decision whether to receive the procedure or not were handed over to a third party group, whether psychiatrists, judges, doctors or commentators, to be debated?

The whole thing is ridiculous; it is utterly crazy. How can one understand such a situation? We must put our feet in the shoes of the person in that position. People will say women have been having babies for millions of years and in most cases without any great difficulty but occasionally a problematic pregnancy occurs. What do we do then? What do we do in any medical situation? Do we debate the matter or do we attend to it? We have no option as a humane society other than to give the best possible treatment to the person presenting with the problem, it is as simple as that. If we depart from that in any shape or form, we are doing ourselves an injustice.

There are those who would say that as a man, I should not have a view on this sort of thing. I do not mind, I am still a member of the population. I do not necessarily agree with the notion only women should make this decision. If a woman presents to a hospital with a difficult pregnancy, the time is long past for other people, men or women, to comment. The only person who is in the eye of the storm is the patient presenting in the hospital. I cannot see for the life of me how anyone could have a prior right to set out the procedure to be followed, particularly if there is a threat to the life of the mother.

We fully accept the 1983 amendment. As we now know, however, the Attorney General at the time pointed out the potential conflict. We debated that ad infinitumat the time. Time, however, has passed and society has learned. We are not all God, and we cannot make these decisions as if we were. Even God himself would have a difficulty coming to a conclusion in some of the situations presented to us from time to time. I do not have any daughters so it easy for me to comment but other people do have daughters and in that situation the future pregnant mothers in this country must be reassured we the legislators understand their predicament and in the event of a doubt about their health during pregnancy, they will not be prevented from receiving the treatment that might be required, the most compassionate and optimum treatment at that particular time. To do otherwise is to shirk our responsibilities and to move away from the situation and leave the matter in the hands of others to be decided. We are a humane society, notwithstanding some of the things we say from time to time, and we must come to a conclusion and follow the options laid out in the report of the expert group.

I do not believe that there should be a free vote on this. We do not come in here to have options, we must stand up and be counted. If it is the consensus in the House that we go a particular route, having regard to the situation unfolding before us, we must make our minds up. I strongly advise against a free vote because we know all about what can happen from past history.

I compliment everyone on all sides in the debate so far. It has been a rational debate and has taken into account all of the issues that must be addressed. I hope we make the right decision and do not have recriminations. Our job, however, is to legislate. We cannot do everything. We can make provision for the issues highlighted in the expert report and have regard to recent events and past events. All of us in this House over the years have dealt with situations where questions were raised in our minds as to why particular procedures were not followed. We live in a litigious society and there could be a case where third parties might intervene to prevent a medical procedure that was urgently necessary at a particular time and that would be tragic.

See this speech in context