Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I rise to make a brief contribution on this important Bill. I would assert that I am pro-life for my own reasons and I do not want to ram my views down anyone’s throat. As a former member of the all-party committee on the Constitution in the late 1990s, chaired by the late Brian Lenihan, and a precursor to the one chaired by Deputy Jerry Buttimer recently, I was present for all hearings regarding abortion. Subsequently a referendum was held on the matter in 2002. I also studied what doctors, experts and politicians had to say at the recent hearings, chaired very professionally and excellently by Deputy Jerry Buttimer. The 2002 referendum was narrowly defeated because, totally unplanned, two extremes - those on the extreme right, promulgated by Dana Rosemary Scallon, and those on the pro-choice side - joined together to defeat the middle ground which was supported by Professor William Binchy, the Roman Catholic Church and others.

There are some aspects of the Bill which underpin the ethical responsibilities of obstetricians and those doctors at the coalface. It is welcome that these are now put into a legislative framework rather than just being left as ethical guidelines. Over the past 12 months, I have canvassed the views of mothers, grandmothers and young people particularly. An event of 4 December last year made me make up my mind on this Bill, however. My daughter-in-law was in the Rotunda Hospital for a minor procedure but, unfortunately, matters went radically wrong. She was in a life or death situation. Under the supervision of the Master of the Rotunda, Dr. Coulter Smith, her life was saved. However, her twin girls, Aoife and Róisín, although born alive at 20 weeks did not survive. This was an emotional time for the parents but also for me and my extended family. I want to put on record my extreme gratitude to Dr. Coulter Smith for intervening. My daughter-in-law, according to the subsequent medical report, had no pulse for 25 minutes. The fact she survived herself is a miracle. Looking back we were delighted he saved the mother’s life.

Technically, what he did was an abortion because he had to intervene as a matter of urgency to save the life of the mother and, to use the medical term, empty the uterus, remove the twins who had no hope of surviving outside the womb. That was a traumatic occasion for me. Subsequent to that, I wrote to ask to meet Dr. Coulter Smith, the master of the Rotunda. He graciously acknowledged my letter and agreed to meet me. In the course of that conversation, if I had any fears or doubts, he expressed to me, as he did here in the hearings of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, his view that in a situation where somebody is suicidal or has suicidal ideation there is no medical evidence to support the notion of having an abortion. I suppose that was one of the reasons that made up my mind to go in this direction.

In saying that, I cannot support section 9 of the Bill because I have also listened to other experts. There were 113 psychiatrists who stated that they were not confident on this but when one hears persons such as Dr. Coulter Smith and other senior obstetricians expressing grave concern at this particular development, then one must find it hard to ignore that type of advice, particularly in the situation in which I and my family found ourselves. In that regard, I hold his professional view in high esteem. I respect the views of others. I will not impose my own views on anyone else but I am entitled to speak and express my opinion.

There has been no debate on the wider circumstance where over 4,000 women each year go abroad, primarily to Britain, to have an abortion. That is a sad affair in society. Senator Bacik the other day called for this area to be looked at widely to see where we can offer better support for those in crisis pregnancies rather than go down the road of an inevitable difficult decision for any woman to make which is not made lightly. We are remiss as a country and as a society in not doing that.

I understand from reliable evidence that currently all of the maternity units and hospitals in Ireland, whether Cork University Maternity Hospital, CUMH, the Rotunda, the Coombe or Holles Street, are overstretched. In the past couple of years there has been a significant increase in births in Ireland and when I hear that ordinary genealogical procedures are being put off, sometimes for months, because of the pressure under which senior obstetricians find themselves, I wonder what would be the realistic outcome if this law was passed and if it was to occur that there were even, say, 20 instances of abortions arising out of suicidal ideation in the country in an already overstretched and understaffed hospital system. The facts are, whether we like it or not, in any of the maternity hospitals, despite the extra work they are endeavouring to do and the brilliant work they do in difficult situations, there is an embargo on staff recruitment, and that also has a knock-on effect. The Minister, whether in response to this debate or at a later stage, should indicate the extra resources the Minister and the HSE are putting in place to buttress the weakened and pressured system in the hospitals. That is something that should be looked at as well.

If we want to look at it from a legal point of view, a point I would make purely as devil's advocate is that a pro-choice person - I am not on that side but respect those of that view - would see this Bill as being totally inadequate. He or she would see it as a pure fudge in an area where it is being spun-out that this is a step to protect the life of the mother and the child. I have listened to the pro-choice arguments over the past two decades where they promulgate that in instances such as rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality women should have the choice to have an abortion, and that it should be had in this country. This does little, if anything, for those who hold that view. I would understand if many Labour Party Senators and some other Senators were to decide to vote against this Bill from a point of view contrary to mine because it certainly will not satisfy their demands, beliefs and views.