Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is a most sensitive issue upon which public opinion is divided not only in this country, but around the world. The polarised nature of the debate is regrettable, much of which has been misleading and false. Public commentary and campaigners should stick to fact over fiction, accuracy over hype, what is in the Bill and no more. Last December, I referred to my duty as a legislator to help provide clarity on issues where no criteria or procedures have been laid down in law and to seek certainty where none exists.

No other Bill in the history of our parliamentary democracy has been debated in such detail. We have had an expert committee, an expert report, hearings on the expert report, heads of the Bill, hearings on the heads of the Bill and then the Bill itself. We understand that more than 50 drafts were circulated within Government and now we have reached the Second Stage debate where each and every Member of the House can contribute and have his or her say.

I compliment the Minister, Deputy Reilly, in this regard.

As the X case is law, what Members are being asked to do is to frame in statute what is currently accepted medical practice. Opponents of this Bill speak of the judgment being flawed. Members do not have the luxury of picking and choosing aspects of the Supreme Court's decisions. They are legally bound by the Supreme Court and by the Constitution. Once enacted, this Bill will ensure that medical professionals may no longer feel the level of care they administer to pregnant women is in some way compromised due to uncertainty or fear or both. One is told Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby and this can be further bolstered only by the passage of this Bill.

Section 9 is the most contentious part of the Bill and that is the reason there are strict safeguards. These safeguards are in addition to those that exist where the threat to the life of the woman is from a physical health condition. The Supreme Court specifically recognised a life-threatening risk arising from suicidal intent as a legitimate basis for a termination, but only where the risk of suicide could be averted only by means of a termination. Safeguards are in the form of not one, not two but three doctors jointly certifying having formed a clear opinion that a termination may take place where it has been deemed necessary to save a woman's life. Psychiatrists and the profession of psychiatry have been trusted over the years and such trust and confidence must continue.

There has been criticism that the Bill is silent on time limits. In accordance with the constitutional position, a human right cannot be subject to a time limit. I noted carefully in this regard the points made by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness in her submission to the health committee. I believe she was clear and direct in her submission and the Attorney General takes a similar view. As Members all are aware, the threat of suicide must be always taken seriously. Were suicide to be excluded from the Bill and were section 9 removed, as the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, and some of her colleagues argue, a constitutional right would still exist and would not have been extinguished by this or any other Act of Parliament. Without reference to suicide, the Bill clearly would be unconstitutional. It is difficult to discern how there could be a legal justification for excluding suicidal women from this legislation. It is equally difficult to discern how there could be a medical justification for excluding threat to life by self-destruction. Abortion may never be a treatment for suicidal intent during a pregnancy but the overriding point must be not whether termination is a treatment for suicide but the existence of clear criteria and the steps that can and will be taken to save the life of the mother and whether those steps include a termination of a pregnancy. This is where the strict safeguards in this Bill can be counted and come in.

I attended some of the hearings, which constituted a new departure in the way Members do their business. I was greatly struck by the submission of Dr. Rhona Mahony, Master of Holles Street. If her comments have not been put on the record, if I have the time, I would be pleased to stich them into the record of this House. She stated:

As suicide entails death by self destruction, a woman who wishes to commit suicide is at risk of dying. Therefore she requires access to expert psychiatric care. It should be pointed out the vast majority of women who are suicidal want treatment for their distress of suicidal feelings and do not want termination of pregnancy... In very rare cases, women and teenage girls will be suicidal as a consequence of the pregnancy and will not wish to continue with their pregnancy. These women and teenage girls should be listened to, believed and supported. In the same way that any woman who is at risk of dying while pregnant, these women should equally have access to a process which enables them to determine whether or not termination of pregnancy is part of a treatment process indicated to save the life... It is reasonable that two psychiatrists must come to an agreed decision regarding the need for termination of pregnancy on the ground of suicide risk. I also agree [she states] that an obstetrician should be involved in this process. While an obstetrician cannot assess suicide intent, obstetric considerations apply and should be addressed by an obstetrician.

I very much reject the notion of abortion as a lifestyle choice or for some so-called socio-economic reasons. Nowhere in this Bill is this suggested or possible. I acknowledge the strict and undeniable medical necessity where women's lives are threatened and make this point as a father of two fabulous girls, as well as a public representative.

In conclusion, the medical profession requires and deserves protection and certainty. Moreover, the women of Ireland need protection and certainty and without a shadow of a doubt, this must be provided by Members in the national Assembly. It is my duty as a legislator to help provide legal clarity, subject only to the Constitution of this Republic.

See this speech in context