Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Where in the Bill is it specified that the full range of neonatal care will be provided? Where is there any duty on doctors to act to vindicate life? Surely, in view of the Minister’s comments in the Dáil last April and the explicit pledge given to voters, the proposed amendments to the Bill should have been uncontroversial.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 speaks of ensuring any decision made “has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable”. There is no equivalent section in this legislation. There appears to be no overriding aim that, where possible, the life of the child should be preserved. Will the Minister please explain how the current Bill’s provisions achieve this aim in the absence of explicit language? What protects against abortion right up to birth on mental health grounds? As has been noted, nothing in section 10 places a bar on that.

It seems bizarre to me that in situations where there is to be termination, including on the grounds of mental health, the medical practitioner giving the certification does not have to be a psychiatrist. This is not just grossly negligent drafting. This is cynical in the extreme. We are talking about procedures which are being defined as medical procedures but are intended to end the life of the unborn. We do not allow psychiatrist colleagues to make pronouncements or to prescribe treatments on obstetrical matters. Why would we allow obstetricians or other medical practitioners to do so in respect of mental health matters?

My amendment had no impact on the right of women to access the service. It simply had regard to the need to respect and protect unborn human life where possible without placing the woman's life in any danger. This has always been the medical practice in Ireland for decades. I already have said that the abolition of the constitutional right to life of the unborn means that the obligation on the treating doctors has changed. It was necessary to fill that gap to a limited degree. We surely cannot conclude that, in removing the eighth amendment, voters believed that children in the womb had no rights whatsoever in law, even later in pregnancy. This goes against everything we know about how Irish people react to and treat pregnancies. It goes against all opinion polling on when Irish people believe life begins. It goes against opinion polling and exit polling on the day of the referendum. It is appropriate to give legal protections of some kind from the point of view of viability. This should not be contentious.

If my amendment had been accepted, an amended section 10 would not in any way have lessened a pregnant woman’s entitlement to all necessary medical treatment to end her pregnancy. It would have meant, however, that where it was possible to save both lives, doctors exercising their clinical judgment would have made an attempt to do so where we are talking about the post-viability situation. Laws in other countries have been shown to be sadly lacking in this regard with no concern whatsoever shown to unborn babies in the later stage of pregnancy. It looks like we are facing a similar situation here beyond a shadow of doubt.

Will colleagues think one more time before they go with this section 10 unamended which will allow for abortion right up to birth, including on mental health grounds, despite the lack of evidence that abortion is therapeutic in cases of mental health? It is terribly irresponsible and terribly unjust.