Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief, because Senator Mullen has covered much of what I wanted to say. I too have tabled this amendment, changing "is ended" to "may be ended" in the hope that it may provide some change to the intent of the Bill. I have a legal opinion which states that, most importantly of all, the expressed definition of "medical procedure" provided for by sections 7 to 9, inclusive, leaves no doubt that the Bill only makes lawful procedures that are fatal for the unborn. The wording used at the start of each of these sections is utterly unambiguous in this regard: "It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended." The Bill does not make lawful any form of termination of pregnancy which does not end an unborn life. One would expect the Minister to be open to some amendment in this area so that it is completely and totally unambiguous and does not give rise to a situation that occurs in many other jurisdictions.

People are being selective in picking up some of the points I am making. I am talking about other jurisdictions, but this is a first step and the first time we are introducing and legalising abortion in our legislation. Being aware of judicial activism, we need to ensure that the wording in these sections, as well as some later sections, is as tight as possible. Let me mention the situation in other countries in which a baby is born and technically the obstetrician may find himself or herself liable if a baby on the cusp of viability pulls through. All the medical evidence given at the committee hearings was that only half of those babies born after a gestation period of 23 to 26 weeks will survive, and half of these will suffer cerebral palsy or some other brain injury and will be disabled. The issue facing the obstetrician is that if the baby dies, he or she is totally covered by the legislation, but if the baby survives there is nothing in the Bill specifically that will give the obstetrician confidence that he or she is covered in that situation. Some of the medical profession have sought legal advice independently on that. I am told that what happens in other countries as a result of the issue of liability is that obstetricians are under pressure from the authorities not to make strenuous efforts to save the life of the baby. I have been told by medical practitioners that in other countries, when the baby is in the process of being born, potassium chloride is injected into the heart and that terminates the life of the baby. Some have said that this lacuna and the fact there is no limit on the term of gestation in the Bill will make the situation worse than in England, where there is a cut-off point of 24 weeks for abortion. Therefore, the likelihood of such a situation occurring in England is lower than it is here.

I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment and, if he has a different viewpoint from the legal advice on medical liability that medical practitioners have received, I ask him to state precisely the position on liability should the baby survive, to assure medical practitioners with regard to their exposure to medical liability proceedings.