Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is hard to understand why anybody would be opposed to providing pain relief to a human being about to undergo a painful procedure. I am not sure any Member is actively against pain relief in principle. Sadly, however, many have spoken out against this amendment in recent weeks. When this was raised at the recent health committee meeting, the Minister said this type of detail is best set out by clinicians in their clinical guidelines rather than by politicians in primary legislation, and that it was not for the Oireachtas to prescribe medication or treatments. Although he said it is not for the Oireachtas to prescribe medication or treatments, this Bill does that in many cases by legalising a range of unspecified procedures or treatments to end the life of an unborn child, even though there is no medical condition in a mother where the intentional ending of her baby's life is a medically indicated treatment.

We recognise that there are times when it is medically indicated to end a pregnancy early to protect the life or the health of the mother. However, the Bill seeks to legalise a wide variety of procedures aimed at intentionally ending the life of the unborn baby. Why is it so inconceivable that the Minister would also include a measure of legislative oversight to ensure that if any of these procedures could cause pain to a tiny human being, the medical personnel would be obliged to mitigate against that possibility? People voted as they did out of compassion and for what they believed was best for the mother involved, be they "Yes" or "No" voters. It was not a vote against babies. However, the Minister appears to be interpreting it now. It was not a vote to ensure babies would be treated as inhumanely as possible. It was not a vote on any specific legislation, as he was at pains to remind us when he introduced his draft legislation in March, and as the Referendum Commission and the High Court have reminded us since. It was a vote to allow the Oireachtas to legislate and that is what we are trying to do.

The Minister seems to think that he is the only politician in the Chamber whose views on sections of the legislation should be considered. That is not the case for any other legislative measure and it should not be the case for this one. We are all elected to help shape legislation on behalf of the electorate and I believe there are few among the electorate who do not want unborn babies who are capable of feeling pain to be denied the most basic concessions to their human dignity and to be protected from unnecessary pain as far as practicable. This legislation is the right place to enshrine the principle that the unborn baby who may be subjected to a painful procedure should be protected and given pain relief. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that children deserve special safeguards and care before as well as after birth. The convention, which Ireland ratified in 1992, states: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." An amendment seeking to ensure that a pain capable human being would be guaranteed pain relief, where possible, is reasonable. Special safeguards should be enshrined in our laws.

The amendment also specifies that an analgesic or anaesthetic should be administered where the baby is determined to be at a gestation of 20 weeks or more. Pain relief is typically given to unborn babies when they undergo prenatal surgery in the womb from 20 weeks on and, therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to seek that the same would be guaranteed for unborn babies about to undergo a painful procedure. Nurses who have treated extremely premature babies have testified that these babies react to painful stimuli such as inserting needles and so forth. Why would we not assume that babies of a similar gestation who are still in the womb would also feel pain? Let us be very clear. Dismemberment is painful and fatal poisoning is painful. It would be a gross abuse of human rights not to ensure that tiny human beings were guaranteed pain relief before undergoing a painful procedure.

The Minister said he does not wish to specify what doctors must do, but if he had done any international research on this, he would have quickly discovered that in other countries where this is not specified in legislation, pain relief is not considered for, or given to, unborn babies. In recent weeks, a court case has been ongoing in Texas in the United States, where live dismemberment abortion procedures are routinely performed without pain relief. The state of Texas is trying to outlaw live dismemberment because it causes intense distress to a foetus or unborn baby, but abortion providers are arguing that it would restrict access to abortion. Does that sound familiar? Do we want to have such a case here? If this will happen anyway, there should be no objection in principle to the consideration of pain relief for an unborn baby where appropriate. This legislative safeguard will not cause any harm. However, if the amendment is opposed, it is likely that in future we will back to debate the issue in the type of detail in which people are being forced to debate it in Texas because "abortion doctors" there, and I use the term loosely, deemed that no pain relief was necessary before tearing a child apart.

I apologise if this language is distressing for anybody present or anybody watching these proceedings, but that is the unpleasant and unsavoury reality of some choices being discussed in the Chamber. This procedure is more commonly known as a D&E procedure, which portrays the horror of what it involves. It is not a rare procedure in the UK. In 2017 alone, 13,000 babies died this way. This included 1,800 at a gestation over 20 weeks when pain was likely to be felt. Perhaps even today, as we speak, an Irish unborn baby is having its limbs taken apart in the UK. Would that procedure be any more palatable if was being done in Letterkenny instead of London? It is not easy to ask these questions or to mention these things here but they are facts in other countries. We must prevent that from happening here. I support the amendment to put those safeguards in place.

See this speech in context