Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have listened to this debate with interest. It is fair to say that various Members have radically different views on the status of unborn human life. There is no absolutist view. If one believes that unborn human life is human life and that, as is done in the Constitution, that human life should be protected, then one must approach this from the point that one has to protect unborn human life and that it is not just a matter of personal choice, just as many other issues in this State are not matters of personal choice if they inflict harm on others, no matter how close. Accordingly, this debate will not finish today because there is a fundamental philosophical difference between people on that issue.

There are some issues spoken about here today that fly in the face of well-established fact. The one I find totally objectionable is an insinuation, sometimes directly, other times indirectly made, that Members do not believe that a woman’s life should be protected at all times. Allegations have been made against some of us that we have a cavalier attitude towards protecting women’s lives. Such an attitude cannot be found when the facts are analysed. A false impression is created that some Members do not care. I care, as every other Member does, about protecting all human life.

I want to address the issue of Savita Halappanavar and maternal care. The Minister said on Committee Stage in reply to an issue I raised, that this country has one of the best records of maternal care of any country in the world. In its simplest terms, we are the fifth best place for a woman who is expecting a child. I want to see that improved and for Ireland to be number one. The everlasting challenge is to maintain these high standards in our hospitals. Unfortunately, people, not only women expecting babies, die in our hospitals who should not have because at times the care in our hospitals was not optimum. All of us know about the tragedy when that happens.

In the case of Savita Halappanavar, from any objective reading of the report into her death, it is fair to say there are issues which need to be addressed immediately and have nothing to do with legislation. Instead, they have to do with procedures in the hospital. In fairness to the Health Service Executive, it has recognised that and it has moved forward to put in protocols to ensure this is never repeated. Accordingly, the charge that in some way by protecting the life of the unborn, we are putting at risk the life of the mother is wrong.

Those of us who believe that the unborn are human, just as the rest of us, are trying to ensure the highest standard of maternal care for the mother. We do not believe these are competing but complementary rights. In looking to give the highest protection to the life of the unborn, one does not do that at the expense of the mother. If sections 7 and 8 improve this and there are issues which the legislation can make clearer, then I have no philosophical difficulty with them.

In this House we know how important the meaning of words is. We must ensure what the words convey in law is what we and the Constitution put there by the people intended to convey. However, one cannot be over-prescriptive because one has to allow doctors clinical flexibilities to make correct decisions in real-life situations which vary enormously. In such situations I am sure a doctor would have to make swift decisions which became very clear in the Savita Halappanavar case regarding delays and so forth.

For those who believe that the constitutional position is correct, which is that we seek to preserve at all times both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn, the amendments being put forward by the Deputies are fundamentally trying to shift the goalposts to a place that neither the Constitution nor, I believe, Irish society wants to go.

See this speech in context