Carol Nolan (Offaly, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment applies only in the case of surgical abortions. It inserts a new section which ensures that the remains of a foetus that has been the subject of a surgical abortion will be disposed of appropriately through, for example, burial. The remains of all human beings should be treated with respect. I do not know how anyone could honestly dispute that.

The woman concerned does not have to make the decision as to how the remains are to be taken care of. However, this amendment makes it clear that she is entitled to make that decision should she wish to.

The section introduced by this amendment also guards against forms of shocking mistreatment to foetal remains which have occurred in other jurisdictions. We could turn a blind eye but I do not believe that would be appropriate or fitting. Unfortunately, we have heard of too many examples of this mistreatment. The offence provisions in the section do not apply to the woman concerned. It merely ensures that, in the case of surgical abortions, the remains of unborn children are treated in a manner consistent with respect for their dignity. They are after all human. This is a matter of basic human decency.

It also makes clear that a woman who has had an abortion under the Bill is entitled to decide which of the methods she wishes to be used. However, since many women may not wish to enter into that question, the amendment provides for the remains of unborn children to be treated with respect and dignity.

This amendment protects against the kind of appalling practices which have been brought to public attention by official inquiries in the United States involving the sale of organs and other human tissue from aborted unborn babies. In the UK, the bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some of them used to heat hospitals. We do not want that practice here. There is an obvious need to ensure that such shocking practices are never repeated.

Remarkably, the Minister has termed this amendment as distasteful. Clearly, the undignified disposal of human remains and the abuse of those remains are extremely distasteful. Accordingly, it is precisely the practices which this amendment seeks to prohibit that are distasteful. Therefore, far from being distasteful itself, this amendment guards against distasteful practices. To contend that requiring human remains to be treated with proper respect is distasteful is evidently absurd. Will the Minister take this into consideration? It is a serious matter. It is not a point I like raising but it needs to be said. We have to make sure there is respect and dignity at all times.

See this speech in context