Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The amendment requires that the doctor performing an abortion takes all appropriate and practical steps to avoid causing pain to the foetus. Where the gestational age of the baby is 20 weeks or more the doctor must ensure the administration of an anaesthetic or analgesic to the foetus prior to carrying out a termination of pregnancy. However, this obligation does not apply in an emergency case, which is quite obvious, where it is not practical or where it is believed the administration of either of these treatments to that baby might pose a risk to life or serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman. This is not in any way our intention with this very reasonable amendment, as Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has said.

Amending the Bill to provide pain relief where an unborn baby may otherwise experience pain is a matter of the most basic humanity. The fact there is a dispute about whether to include such a provision in my opinion is appalling. The amendment merely seeks to ensure that in most cases, not even in all cases, doctors ensure the unborn child is not subjected to pain. The fact this is not already in the Bill and that it is actually necessary to propose an amendment to deal with it is gravely disturbing to me and to many young and old people who have spoken to me.

Some abortion advocates claim the unborn child cannot feel pain until the third trimester but this claim is flatly contradicted by modern evidence. There is increasing scientific evidence from around the world that babies in the womb feel pain before 20 weeks. Anaesthetics and pain relief for babies undergoing surgery in the womb is generally recommended and has been called for in late-term abortions. Some say it should be done from as early as 18 weeks gestation. Surgeons recognise unborn babies as patients and anaesthetics are routinely used for babies undergoing surgery in the womb. Surely the same should apply in the case of surgical abortions. It is a no-brainer, as Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has said. Members should just tell us why they feel it should not or would not be done. Where are we going in humanity? It would be horrific and unnecessary for unborn children to suffer needlessly during an abortion. To prevent this, the amendment, which we have carefully considered, should be accepted without any difficulty. It is clearly the duty of compassionate and humane doctors to act on the precautionary principle of prevention of pain where there is a risk that it may be experienced. I am sure this is the way that all doctors operate under the Hippocratic oath on a daily basis to deal with a wide range of ailments and when patients present with any issue, whether young or old, from the cradle to the grave.

The amendment would not prohibit abortion where the baby can feel pain. It merely requires the administration of pain relief. Who in his or her right mind would not accept the amendment? As I said, we are appalled and aghast it is not included in the Bill in the first instance - appalled and aghast are mild words - and we feel it is totally necessary. We appeal for support from any Member who thinks like us. Many people of all denominations, including people who voted "Yes" in the referendum, have contacted me and others, including other Members, to appeal for this. My goodness, we get emails on an hourly basis on anti-fur farming and anti-hare coursing. Today there was opposition to a Bill on funding the horse and greyhound industries. People are right to feel like this. How can we have these and not want to administer pain relief to an unborn baby? I cannot get that through my thought process. It is unimaginable. Anyone I have asked just shakes his or her head. People have come to me and appealed on this. Other Members have also received the emails. The thought process is just unthinkable. As I have said, doctors routinely do this, as do surgeons on a hourly basis for other procedures. Why would they refuse to do it for an unborn baby before it will be killed?

I appeal to people to listen and respect where we are coming from in the interest of basic humanity. We should try to be as humane as possible. We do not have many amendments in the overall scale of the Bill. We are not delaying it. We have 16 amendments in total, which is the same as on Committee Stage. We listened to the people who voted. Very few people voted for a baby to be destroyed in the womb without administering pain relief. I cannot generalise but I cannot believe people voted for it. This is why we have tabled these amendments. I do not want to be repetitious but for the sake of anybody watching we are not delaying the Bill. We are doing what we have been elected to do with regard to any legislation. We had no pre-legislative scrutiny as the Minister waved it. It is a very valuable tool that was independently reviewed recently. We are trying to table amendments without being scoffed at and scorned and without laughter coming from the other side of the House. This is the most serious issue I will ever deal with in the House. If I am not here after the next election I will be happy to leave it to history to evaluate and see what we have been about here. We are not anti-woman or anti-child. We are pro-humanity.

See this speech in context