Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, line 26, to delete “is ended” and substitute “may be lost”.

One remarkable aspect of this debate has been that when seeking to reassure Members, the various Ministers present talk about the necessity of procedures that involve the termination of a pregnancy. However, the legislation provides for the lawfulness of procedures in the course of which or as a result of which an unborn human life is ended. Not only has the Government resisted taking a precautionary approach to the possibility that the unborn, in the context of the termination of a pregnancy, might feel pain but Members have also seen a refusal to take on board a direct duty to protect the life of an unborn who is viable, as well as the rejection of specific language that would require this where it was practicable to so do. This is extremely troubling. As I stated, the issue is that instead of using the word "ended", that is, in the context of the lawfulness of procedures leading to the ending of life, one should be talking about the possibility of life being lost.

As was stated on Committee Stage, I seek to protect and provide for situations where it is clear to medical personnel that they are at no disadvantage from the perspective of civil or criminal law in the event that they perform the procedure in question but the child does not die and that, in fact, it is desirable that the child not die where that is avoidable. The Government has been talking out of both sides of its mouth because, on the one hand, it has been stating it is desirable that the child should not die where it is possible to provide for this, but there is nothing in the language used in the legislation to give comfort on that point. It appears that the word "lost" would be more appropriate if what the Government intends doing in any of these sections pertains to ending the pregnancy but trying to save the life where that is practicable. Ideally, instead of talking about when, in the course of which or as a result of which "an unborn life is ended", wording stating "a pregnancy would be ended and the life of the unborn endangered or lost" should be used. The idea that the life would be lost really honours more what the Constitution requires, which is respect for the equal right to life of the unborn. Therefore, it appears that the word "lost" would introduce no ambiguity but bring much reassurance that where it was practicable to so do, the life of the child would always be saved.

There are two dimensions to the amendments. The first is the more desirable language of loss, implying that the intention is to save life, if at all possible, and that it is a regrettable fact that the child's life is to be lost, not a sought end in itself. The second aspect is the use of the phrase "may be" instead of the word "is" in the context of the life being lost or ended because that would make it clear that such procedures would not necessarily end in the death of the child in post-viability situations and that doctors were both fully protected and fully expected to protect life in that context.