Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments, especially amendment No.9 which we are currently debating. Senators are asking why we are quoting American and British consultants and not Irish consultants. Part of the answer to that conundrum is the following.

The Irish medical model, the two-patient model, has a very different idea of care from the one that will arise from the passing of this legislation. We need therefore to look at the countries that are already down the road which we are now about to travel. Britain and America are two countries which many years ago introduced what they felt at the time was exceptionally limited abortion, to be used in very few cases, yet we know that is not what transpired.

Amendment No. 9, in the names of Senators Healy Eames and Mary Ann O’Brien, states that the proposal would be implemented, "provided this does not increase the risk of the loss of life of the pregnant woman". That is a very plain statement providing for an anaesthetic where there is no increase in the risk of the loss of life of the pregnant woman. The Minister debated this with us at some length on Committee Stage and said he would come back to Senator Healy Eames on the matter. I think he gave a partial answer yesterday. He quoted statistics, not from Ireland but from Britain. We can consider all the evidence available but I find it difficult to come up with any reason one would oppose the request that, where it absolutely would not in any way increase the health risk to the mother, the anaesthetic would be provided.

The argument has been made that we listened to consultants here in this room during the hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. Those hearings were very useful but this particular issue was not addressed. Why not? It was not addressed because until now we had a very different model of health care provision from the one we are about to introduce. We also listened to medical consultants stating on the record that in other jurisdictions they would not have to participate in termination procedures if they had a conscientious objection to them. Now we will introduce a regime where such medical procedures will have to be provided.

What Senators Healy Eames and Mary Ann O’Brien are proposing is that we would at least try to do so in a humane fashion. I support the amendment. I heard the Minister's partial response yesterday and I have heard the response of the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, which go back to what we were told in the early stages of the debate, namely, that there could be no substantive amendments and nothing other than the original Bill would be accepted. Maybe that is the problem. The gate has been closed and we have been told that even reasonable amendments simply will not be accepted. I find this amendment very reasonable and the public would find it very difficult to oppose.

We speak about what the opinion polls tell us but we should never be led by opinion polls. Some of my colleagues love to quote polls saying 80% or 90% of people want this or that judgment. If one asked the Irish people in an opinion poll do they feel that an unborn child, whose life is about to be ended, should at least be provided with the dignity and the pain relief of an anaesthetic, there would not be 70% or 80% in favour, there would be 100%. We should at least be reasonable in responding to that. I accept that the Minister will not accept any amendment whatsoever but it is important that we put on the record this request from at least a minority of this House. I think the majority of Irish people would want this amendment to receive fair consideration. How can anybody say "No" to pain relief? How can anybody say "No" to humanity? How can anybody say to "No" to giving at least some degree of dignity at the end of life to an unborn child? As a society, if we say "No" to this amendment we are making a very profound and negative statement about the values or lack of values in our country.