David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact that Senator Heffernan has raised the matter so sensitively. It is clear that the matter must be addressed. A young woman in the prime of life and full of vitality was taken from her family. Apparently certain facts have been established. She was admitted to hospital suffering from severe pain. It increased and got worse after a day and she and her family requested a termination. At that point the baby could not have been born alive and the death of the child was inevitable, medically. She again requested a termination. If the newspaper reports to which Senator Heffernan referred are accurate she was told not once, but on several occasions, that the law meant that as long as the foetal heartbeat was detectable, even though the child was inevitably going to die, she could not have the procedure. Apparently she was also told - this is very worrying - that this was a Catholic country.

This is certainly a country in which there is considerable respect for the Roman Catholic Church historically. The overwhelming majority of people give adherence to that belief. However, I would not like to think, as somebody who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that this was a Catholic state. We have made provision by removing an Article from the Constitution to ensure that all beliefs should be treated separately. The husband apparently indicated that he was neither Irish nor Catholic but a Hindu like his wife.

We stand condemned because of our lack of courage in facing the issue. It is many years since the X case and we have been rebuked by the courts for not providing legislation. That is due to a lack of political courage, perhaps an understandable one. Three questions need to be answered by legislation. Minimal legislation allows a woman to travel from the country but we have been warned by the European Court of Human Rights that there is opacity in the law. That makes it difficult for doctors or anybody else to determine what is the situation. It seems to me that there are three questions that require an answer. First, at what point in a health crisis can the mother legitimately seek a termination? It is legitimate, apparently, under the law but we do not know at what point. We need to answer the following. At what point can she legitimately seek a termination?

Second, to what extent can a patient be denied access to this treatment because of the conscientious objection of a consultant? Third, to what extent is a patient entitled to a second opinion, how quickly and also alternative appropriate treatment? These are very important matters that need to be dealt with. I have tried to be factual in as far as I understand the case. I have indicated that this is a tragic situation. Of course one sends one's sympathy to the bereaved family. We must face up to the situation. I believe I have isolated three clear questions in a neutral, non-controversial and non-aggressive manner that we, as legislators, need to answer.