Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The word "is" makes it dangerous. Up to now the practice has been that should the mother's life need to be saved, that is the goal, but it may mean the unintentional taking of the baby's life. I understand that everybody is fine with that. What worries me about the wording in the section is that it makes clear that an unborn human life is ended. This is actually worse than the current practice. Doctors practise, at the moment, with a duty of care to mother and child. For that reason, we should leave it at "may be". The word "is" makes it dangerous for the unborn, but the words "may be" gives hope that the life of the unborn might be saved. This does not take away from the overall thrust of section 7. There is every reason a doctor will intervene to save the life of the mother, because there is real evidence of a physical illness. Why not just leave the words "may be"? This puts the duty of care in the doctor's hands, and he or she can also save the baby's life, which is the current practice.

The aim of this amendment is to allow medical practitioners to intervene to save a mother's life in a manner that allows them to attempt to save the baby's life also. The current wording, with "is" instead of "may be", presumes that the baby's life will be ended. That is dangerous, and in fact does not render lawful the saving of the baby's life. There is no reason for the current wording to remain other than to pave the way for situations in which no attempts will be made to save the baby's life. I ask the Minister to reflect on this amendment, given that the intention is to clarify existing practice.

I will now address my second amendment, amendment No. 32 in this grouping. Amendment No 32 seeks to amend section 9, which deals with the risk of loss of life from suicide. Section 9(1) states: "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". Again, in this amendment I wish to delete the word "is" and substitute "may be", because it gives a chance to the baby. In both of these sections we are stating that the mother's life is the primary reason for the intervention, but with these amendments, I am requesting that we do not use the phrase "is ended", as under this wording the baby's life will definitely be taken, but the words "may be" give a chance for the baby to be also saved.

I want to add that I am concerned about another inference that may be drawn from the Minister's decision not to include the words "may be" as we have proposed. Senators Mullen and Walsh referred to this. I have tabled another amendment that makes this point. If the word "is" is retained in the Bill, a doctor who saves a baby may end up being liable if that baby ends up with an injury. That might mean there is less of a reason for the doctor to want to save the baby. This is a very serious issue and we need to tease it out here. Much of what I am saying might be uncomfortable. We need to do it here so that doctors, mothers and babies do not have to face these situations somewhere else. We are framing the law now. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers.