Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments of the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, regarding the clinical pathway. They should be supported by the Minister as outlined. I tabled amendment No. 56 to remove section 9, which deals with the risk of the loss of life from suicide. Of all the elements in the Bill, this is the most controversial. There would be little or no opposition to the Bill if section 9, the cornerstone of the Bill, was removed. We have repeatedly heard that the Bill is about providing clarity for doctors and protecting the lives of pregnant women but section 9 does not serve these worthy objectives. Its purpose is simply to give statutory effect to the X case decision, which we know is a flawed judgment. It legislates for the direct and deliberate destruction of unborn human life. The desire to legislate for the X case is what has us here today and is reflected throughout the Bill. Unfortunately, it has corrupted other sections of the Bill, which are about ensuring pregnant women in Ireland continue to receive the high standard of medical care to which they have become accustomed. As the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, stated, retired X case judge, Hugh O'Flaherty stated explicitly that the X case ruling is moot in current abortion debate because the girl did not have an abortion but a miscarriage. The definition of medical procedure used in sections 7, 8 and 9 was devised to meet the purposes of section 9 alone. It reads: "It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended." It is only a medical procedure during, or as a result of which, unborn human life is ended that is made lawful by this Bill. This is at odds with the current medical practice in our hospitals but is being made lawful by the Bill. It has changed sections 7 and 8.

The obstetricians who testified before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children made clear, regardless of their view on the Bill, that they do everything possible to save the lives of viable babies. I hope they continue to do so but they will be acting outside the boundaries of this Bill if they do so. That causes major concern. The barrister Mr. Paul Brady stated that section 9 marks a change in the law. He said that it is not accurate to say otherwise and that it creates, for the first time, a statutory basis in Irish law for where there may be a direct and intentional termination of an unborn child's life.

Psychiatrists are very concerned about the change in their role. It is a role they have not had to date and they will be asked to determine whether there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother in order that she may procure a termination of pregnancy. Many do not see this as their role as medical practitioners and the role could be construed as making psychiatrists the gatekeepers to abortion. Psychiatric practice relates to the assessment and treatment of patients, not the assessment and adjudication. Psychiatrists are not judges. Dr. Maria Cahill said during the hearings that the Constitution gives permission to the Dáil and Seanad to legislate rather than imposing an obligation on them. The retired Supreme Court judge, Mrs. Catherine McGuinness, said that on the question of whether the Oireachtas has acted unconstitutionally over the past 21 years:

I do not think that can be said. [...] It is free not to legislate.

We know from the X case, decided 21 years ago, that no psychiatric evidence was considered by the courts. The compelling evidence, as the Minister of State stated, is that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal intent. In fact, it may contribute to it. I am concerned that the law is changing in this area and that, as the expert Mr. Kevin Malone stated in his submission to the Joint Committee on Health and Children that "the proposed legislation runs the risk of further invisibilising, normalising, and at worst exacerbating the much more real and volatile threat of increased suicide risk in Irish men, and potentially accelerating suicide risk in young women also."

No one now knows how many abortions will be procured under section 9. I am concerned as Sam Coulter Smith stated that there is no gestational limit in respect of the Bill. Delivering the baby at 25 weeks gestation could lead to death, extreme prematurity or a child with cerebral palsy or significant developmental issues for the future. The Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, has acknowledged that situation by stating that the Bill will result in more babies suffering damage because of premature delivery.

We know no country has ever been successful in restricting abortion on these limited grounds of suicide.

The State of California introduced therapeutic abortion legislation in 1967. The legislators thought it was a strict, regulated provision which would be very rarely used. Within three years, the number of abortions had risen from 500 to 63,000. For those and other reasons, there is no way I can support section 9 of the Bill. The Government assures us that section 9 will rarely, if ever, be invoked. Clearly, I hope that proves to be the case, but fear that it will not. I am not prepared to be responsible for the deaths of those unborn children who will be killed if section 9 is enacted. As a matter of conscience, I will not be in a position to support section 9.

See this speech in context