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

I tabled amendments Nos. 20, 55, 58, 89, 98, 133, 140, 142, 144, 149, and 156 and they are all connected because basically, what they seek to do is to remove the suicide provision from this Bill, the so-called suicide clause. Substantially, this relates to section 9. I propose the deletion of section 9 of the Bill and the making of the necessary consequential amendments.

When we examine this, what we must decide is whether section 9 is compatible with the Constitution and the principle therein that all human life is worthy of protection. As I said on Second Stage, a human rights approach to this issue leaves a choice as to whether unborn human life is human life and if it is, whether it deserves the same basic protection as born human life. Not only do I think unborn human life is human life, but the Irish people in referendum after referendum have confirmed that simple principle in Article 40.3.3o.

The argument put forward by the Taoiseach and the Government regarding Article 40.3.3o is that there is an obligation to legislate for the X case judgment. As time goes on, I believe it is becoming clearer that this is not the case and that it would be open to us to pass this legislation without section 9. The worst case scenario if we did that would be a challenge in the courts. I am certain that if we pass the Bill as proposed, it will also be challenged in the courts as not "protecting the equal right to life of the unborn". In fact, I am certain that the Bill will open up a constitutional and legal mine field.

Why do I believe we are not bound by the X case judgment? The reasons are legal, ethical and medical and are based on all of the knowledge gathered in the intervening years on this subject. It is important to remind ourselves of the simple facts of the X case, a very sad case. A young 14 year old was raped and became pregnant. In the High Court, on the evidence of one psychologist in a case not contested by the State, it was accepted as a matter of fact that there was a real and substantial risk to her life if she did not get an abortion and that an abortion was the only way of avoiding that risk. The Supreme Court in its ruling could not examine the evidence and gave a majority ruling which granted her permission to have an abortion.

We have been told time and again in a mantra like fashion that the ruling in this case created a general obligation on the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion if a pregnant woman had a suicidal ideation. This always seemed to me to generalise what had been a unique set of circumstances in an extraordinary way. I was always wary of this approach, as I had seen over the years how the interpretation of the Constitution had changed according to circumstances and knowledge. This is very obvious in recent years in regard to the interpretation of property rights clauses in the Constitution, where the previous mantra that property rights, including salaries and pensions of public servants, could not be interfered with was subsequently modified. To have no less a person than retired Supreme Court Judge Hugh O'Flaherty say that this point is moot or arguable or as the Irish dictionary says, inphléite, is very significant. As he said, "to say the X case is some giant talisman hanging over us is wrong". That this is arguable is doubly so when we consider he was one of the judges who gave the majority verdict in the X case. Therefore, it seems the Oireachtas would be perfectly within its powers to delete section 9 and pass the Bill.

If it was to do this, the vast majority of people with objections to the Bill would come out totally in support of it. As I said before, I have no principled objection to the rest of the legislation. In fact, I welcome it as it brings clarity to the medical crisis covered in sections 7 and 8.

Section 9 will make bad law that will be open to abuse and will also put doctors in an invidious position in trying to predict the unpredictable. It is generally accepted that, thankfully, suicide in pregnancy is rare. This, however, increases the difficulty which is not addressed in the Bill as to how it is possible to establish a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother as required in condition No. 1 by proponents of the Bill. What we do know is that, even if this could be established with some accuracy, in the absence of biochemical markers, abortion is not a treatment to prevent suicide. This was clearly established at the Oireachtas hearings. That the Oireachtas will legislate to provide for a so-called treatment that flies in the face of all reputable evidence-based medicine is extraordinary. That this is being provided for as the only treatment in these cases is beyond belief. If the Oireachtas was taking a similar approach to any other medical issue, the proponents of the Bill would ridicule them as indulging in bad practice.

As I said, the Oireachtas hearings show abortion is not a treatment to prevent suicide. None of the learned textbooks on psychiatry on the management of mental health issues in pregnancy, even those from jurisdictions in which abortion is freely available, mentions or recommends abortion as a treatment for suicidality in pregnancy. I support the work done by the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, in drafting an amendment which would provide for a care plan for those who experience suicidal thoughts in pregnancy. This seems to be a practical and well based approach to this issue, one likely to save the lives of pregnant women and their unborn.

One of the obligations under the Bill, as drafted, and a constitutional obligation is to seek to preserve the life of the unborn if a termination takes place once viability outside the womb has been reached. How many will be left disabled as a consequence of the unnecessary head 9? The figures are startling and have been provided for me by a well known obstetrician. The fact of the matter is that for babies delivered between 23 and 24 weeks, there is a 50% risk of cerebral palsy; between 24 and 25 weeks, the risk drops to 20%; between 25 and 26 weeks, it is 22%; between 26 and 27 weeks, it is 12.3%; between 27 and 28 weeks, it is 11%; between 28 and 29 weeks, it is 8.2%; between 29 and 30 weeks, it is 8.3%; between 30 and 31 weeks, it is 7%, and between 31 and 32 weeks, it is 4%.

Before we rush willy-nilly into passing this totally flawed legislation, we should picture in our minds some future Dáil that will be confronted by people, men and women, seriously disabled because of this section of the Bill, who will sue the State for introducing a Bill that led to them having lifelong disabilities, based on introducing bad medical practice in our laws. Therefore, I ask the Minister to go to the Taoiseach and ask for permission to accept the amendment. In view of the radically changed position, legally and medically, thrown up by the process that this House and the Government have set in train, it is time to review this section. If the Government accepts the amendment and the other relevant consequential amendments, the Bill will pass with widespread support inside and outside the House.

Greatness is not about sticking to one's tack when new information comes to light that changes the position. It is about recognising new facts and adjusting policy accordingly. The Taoiseach has said time and again that he is pro-life, pro the mother's life and pro the life of the unborn. I ask him to act accordingly. I ask that we support these amendments in order that the whole provision on suicide will be taken out of the Bill and replaced with proper medical evidence-based care paths.

See this speech in context