John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Since the Government started the process of addressing the ruling of the Supreme Court in the X case by its establishment of an expert group and, in particular, since the group reported its findings, I have had a major concern that the inevitable outcome of this process would be to risk rather than protect human life. My consistent and simple view has been that a mother should always receive whatever medical treatment is necessary to protect her life. Equally, however, the life of the unborn baby should be protected unless and until the life of the mother is under threat. I appreciate that, in practice, the risks and associated treatments cannot always be equally balanced between the life of a mother and that of her unborn child. It is in this context that we are faced with the difficult question of conflict between one life and another. Along the journey of this process, from the report of the expert group to the heads of the Bill to the publication of the text of the legislation, some of my concerns have been allayed, while others remain and will need to be addressed on Committee Stage to allow me to support the Bill on Final Stage.

There are many aspects of the Bill that I welcome and with which I am comfortable. These include the greater clarity and certainty given to the medical profession regarding the legal parameters within which it can take decisions to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency where there is a real and substantial risk to her life. Against this, it is well known that I have an issue of conscience with section 9, which deals with the threat of suicide to the life of a mother if a pregnancy continues. In principle, I cannot accept that there is or should be a right to terminate the life of an unborn child on the ground that there is a risk to the life of the mother where that risk is suicide. This is not a matter of religious belief on my part, but an issue of the human rights of the mother and unborn child.

I have done everything in my power to inform myself and obtain clarity on this issue, including sitting through the majority of the hearings of the Joint Committee on Health and Children in January and May. I met numerous medical, psychiatric and legal experts and politicians, including in other jurisdictions, to hear as many views as possible. I also met women who have had terminations because of suicidal feelings and lived to regret their decision. Last week, l met the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health and the Attorney General to obtain further clarity on this matter. This has informed and perhaps strengthened my view that, in principle, abortion on the grounds of suicidality is not right. These meetings have also informed my understanding of the law and, in practical terms, the changes legislators can make to the Bill before us.

The law was established by the Supreme Court in the X case when it decided that the Constitution permits abortion in circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother, which risk may include the risk of suicide. While I do not agree with the court's interpretation of Article 40.3 of the Constitution, I understand that its decision trumps any desire I or the Government may have to legislate to the contrary. In the more than 20 years since this interpretation of our Constitution has been in force, medical practitioners have taken decisions within the law, as established by the Supreme Court, without having access to legislative guidance or parameters within which to make such difficult and life changing decisions and without specific regulation in this area.

I am aware that Ireland has been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights for failing to clearly outline how the right established in the X case can be accessed. As legislators, we must ask ourselves what can be done to protect as many lives as possible. In doing so, we must distinguish between the law as interpreted in the X case ruling and the proposed legislation. The argument made by those who support the Bill is that in the absence of this legislation, the Supreme Court ruling could, in practice, be interpreted more liberally than section 9, as currently framed. It has been suggested that this view was borne out in the subsequent A and B v. Eastern Health Board case in which the evidence of one psychiatrist was taken to permit termination on the ground of suicide. The obvious question that arises in this context is whether there would have been a different outcome to the case if this legislation had been in place at the time.

It is ironic that the Bill is being strongly opposed by those who campaigned for the 1983 referendum which subsequently resulted in the ruling in the X case. In 2002, people were given an opportunity to remove the suicide ground by referendum and declined to do so. It remains the case, therefore, that a real and substantial threat to the life of a pregnant woman which emanates from suicidality can give rise to a constitutionally permissible termination of pregnancy where that risk can, as a matter of probability, only be averted by such termination. Again, I do not agree in principle that abortion is or should be a treatment for suicide. The decision I have to make, however, is whether the status quo or the framework set out in the proposed legislation will better protect human life. I assure all my constituents and members of the public at large that I will approach this decision with extreme care and seriousness and do everything possible to ensure that whatever scheme is included in the final Bill, regardless of whether I vote for or against it, will protect as many lives as possible. It is only after Committee Stage has been completed that the full picture will become clear in respect of this legislation and at that point I will make a final decision on whether I can support it.

While I do not propose to discuss in detail the amendments suggested by Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, I concur with him on many of the points he raised. At the outset of this process, I stated I did not want my vote on this issue to be taken for granted. That remains the case. In the past nine months, I have read almost 3,000 postcards, 4,500 e-mails and approximately 600 letters and my office has received several thousand telephone calls. I have also met hundreds of people who, for the most part, were respectful in their approach, for which I thank them. However, I object to my staff taking personal abuse, as occurred on several occasions in my offices and at clinics, as they perform an important task that allows me to carry out my work representing my constituents in this House.

There has been much debate as this legislation has come closer to the voting stage about whether a free vote should be given on social and moral issues. Having sat through all the hearings and the debates in this Chamber, the committee rooms and beyond, and having observed that the medical profession, the lawyers, the judges, the psychiatrists and the politicians are split down the middle on the legislation, I am convinced there should have been a free vote on all sides and in all parties. There should not be a conflict between the loyalty to my party and to my conscience. While I respect those who have decided otherwise, I strongly believe that democracy would be strengthened if a free vote was granted. If we are serious about Dáil reform, the opportunity of a free vote on such an extremely contentious and sensitive issue should be addressed as a priority.

See this speech in context