Brian Walsh (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to address two of my amendments, Nos. 69 and 77. I, like others, have serious difficulties with section 9 of the Bill. To my mind, it threatens to defile the Statute Book with the absurd premise that the suicidality of one individual can in some way be abated by the killing or destruction of another human being. This principle was not conceived in any centre of medical excellence or research, but rather in the Supreme Court. To my mind, this court issued a flawed judgment in the X case, and not having heard any medical evidence at the time, it operated in an information vacuum.

We now have an abundance of up-to-date medical evidence and research from our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom, which clearly states that abortion is not an appropriate treatment for suicidality. In fact, the provision of abortion in such circumstances has been shown to result in creating more mental health issues in women than it would seek to negate. We heard all of this evidence here in spades during the two sets of Oireachtas hearings, yet we are poised to ignore all of that medical evidence and pass legislation that has no basis in medical fact.

I have submitted a number of amendments with a view to making improvements to the Bill as opposed to making the Bill acceptable. I did not propose the deletion of section 9, as I know that to do so would render the Bill unconstitutional. What I would like to see is the question of suicide, and perhaps questions raised by other Deputies during the debate, to be put to the people again by way of a referendum, in light of the new evidence and research that is now available and in order to address the incompatibility of certain aspects of the X case judgment with up-to-date contemporary medical evidence regarding abortion and suicidality.

People will argue that we have had two referenda in the past, but medical evidence and research evolve and, most importantly, best medical practice evolves. I believe it is incumbent on us as legislators to make the decisions we make, having regard to the best possible information available to us at any given time. If, for example, we were to frame legislation concerning the health of women in pregnancy based on the best advice that has been available previously, we could be looking at providing for symphysiotomy in the legislation. If we went back further and were to frame legislation concerning the health of women in pregnancy based on the best medical advice available 40 to 50 years ago, we could be looking at the administration of thalidomide in legislation. We, however, are in the process of framing legislation for the protection of life during pregnancy in 2013 and we must be guided by the evidence available to us today, not bound by a decision manufactured in the courts back in 1992.

In formulating the proposed legislation, the Government has ignored everything the experts had to say during the two sets of Oireachtas hearings. It has come up with a Bill that is shaped by political considerations rather than medical evidence. In truth, abortion is no more a treatment for suicidal ideation than suicide is a treatment for it. Many Deputies have spoken about the low incidence of women who will avail of this, but let us refer again to our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom. In England and Wales in 2011, almost 200,000 terminations were performed and over 95% of these were on the basis of mental health issues.

Section 9 of the Bill also threatens to normalise suicide.

Some psychologists and psychiatrists have suggested this, although it represents a departure from best practice as outlined in suicide prevention guidelines. We are proposing to codify in legislation the premise that suicide is a legitimate option, the contemplation of which has the potential to make legal something which is otherwise illegal. Suicide is not an option; it is a manifestation of false perception that there are no options. We have had numerous debates on this in the two and a half years I have sat in this House. All of our efforts on suicide prevention have centred on getting the message out that there are options for people, that people can seek help and that there is support out there. Our guidelines state that suicide must never be represented as a valid choice, but this Bill conflicts with that and it threatens to normalise it as a legitimate response to anxiety and distress.

I also have concerns, as have many others, in regard to the absence of a gestational time limit in the proposed legislation. One scenario which might arise is if a pregnancy is terminated under section 9 at, say, 24 or 25 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is on the cusp of viability. That child may well survive the termination, but being prematurely induced at that stage exposes it to a high risk of incurable conditions such as cerebral palsy, brain damage, blindness and other debilitating illnesses. It may consign the child to a hopeless future of institutionalisation and disability. As I said on Second Stage, it is not difficult to envisage how a child needlessly damaged like this, unwanted by its parents and destined to subsist in a desolate limbo, could ultimately have recourse to the courts arising from the State having failed in its duty of care.

I also believe this legislation may herald a fundamental shift in the culture of care in this country's hospitals. Our health care professionals, in making every effort to protect the life of the mother and that of the child, in accordance with their own guidelines, have made Ireland one of the safest countries in the world for women in pregnancy. What impact will this legislation have on the culture of care in Irish hospitals if, one day, a doctor is striving to save the life of a woman and her child, and the next is perhaps gowning up to perform a procedure that will result in the death of the unborn child?

One aspect of this debate which saddens me is the fact that some Members opposite have used the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar to advance one side of the argument. I believe it is shameful of those Members who have engaged in such dishonest and disrespectful politics. Savita's death has been wrongfully used to further one side of the argument. I believe everyone in this House welcomes the clarity this Bill brings for medical professionals operating in this sphere, as I welcome it. It is dishonest of Members opposite to suggest or imply otherwise.

I do not believe, and this is my honest assessment, that the lack of clarity in the Medical Council guidelines which are in place at present contributed to Savita's sad passing. I attended her inquest and I read the report into her death. To my mind, the problem in Galway was that her medical team did not recognise in time that there was a threat to her life. Had they done so, they would have acted, as they have done in Galway in the past, and as has been done in an average of 30 cases each year, as we were told at the Oireachtas hearings. They would have acted to terminate the pregnancy but, sadly, they did not recognise the threat to her life in time.

Let us be clear. This Bill does not change the law in so far as it applied to Savita's case. Had this legislation been in effect at the time of that tragedy, sadly, I believe the outcome would have been no different.

I am under no illusion that the stance I have adopted concerning this legislation is not a popular one, it is not prudent from a political perspective and it is a decision for which I am likely to pay a heavy price. However, if political isolation and future electoral defeat is the cost of doing what I believe to be right and in the best interests of the people I represent, then I will gladly pay that price. Too often in the past, our decisions have been guided by having an eye to the next general election and to what is popular. Political foresight has only extended to the next election. It is perhaps because of that mindset that we find ourselves in the economic crisis from which we are trying to recover.

It is time for us to not only look further but also in a different direction on this issue, not towards what is momentarily popular but towards what is clearly right. It remains my hope that those of us from within the Fine Gael family who will vote against this legislation tonight can continue to be accommodated within the party. I have spent 30 of my 40 years actively involved in Fine Gael. I have the very highest respect for the Minister and, indeed, for the Taoiseach. I believe the Minister is genuine and sincere in what he is trying to achieve here. I do not agree with that point of view but I would hope he would also show me the respect I believe my point of view deserves.

The Taoiseach has been magnanimous in the past in dealing with those who have been disloyal to him, and I think a far greater level of disloyalty has been displayed towards the Taoiseach and the party in the past. I do not believe that I have digressed from the party's values. I gave a commitment to the people based on my understanding of Fine Gael's position in advance of the last general election. I made a commitment on the doorsteps and that is a commitment I intend to keep. One senior Minister said recently on "The Week in Politics", when he spoke about broken election promises, "Isn't that what you do at election time?" It is not what I do at election time, and it is not what I intend to do here.

See this speech in context