Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am aware that yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, referred to two reports from two respected medical journals which stated that the unborn do not experience pain until post-29 weeks in one report or 24 weeks gestation in the second report. I have done a lot of research on this topic since we first tabled the amendment. I have 22 pages of information from the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and doctors from all over the world who have given different opinions and different scientific views. There is disagreement with some of the research science stating 18 weeks while others state 20, 22 or 16 weeks. While I accept the Minister's words as being said in good faith, those words suited his argument. This is definitely an area of uncertain science. I have listed equally respected reports that contradict the two reports which the Minister cited. I will accept that given the various range of views on the topic, depending on whether one is classed as pro-life or pro-choice, this area is uncertain. When it comes to a burden of proof, one would have thought that the mature and civilised action would be to provide anaesthesia to the unborn at 20 weeks. Our whole argument is for the protection of the mother's life and this amendment will not hamper that in any way. Even if there is the slightest chance that some of my 18 pages of medical reports are correct, and that there is the slightest chance that the baby may feel pain, what is wrong with making this small amendment that will have an anaesthetist present to ensure the unborn baby does not feel pain?

If the Minister of State cannot accept the amendment for any reason, I propose that we introduce a Bill very similar to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 June 2013 in the most liberal abortion regime in the world, namely, the United States. We should do so this autumn if he cannot see his way to accepting this provision. I had predicted that the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, would protest, in respect of the amendment, that we cannot be prescriptive in the legislation. Is is clear, however, that we can be prescriptive enough to ask two doctors to make a decision, quite rightly, in cases in which a mother is suicidal. I am asking the Minister of State to consider that perhaps my science is correct and we should insist on an anaesthetist being present in the circumstances I have indicated. It is the least we can do.