Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are in a new constitutional situation where the constitutional right to life of the unborn has been removed. That means that any obligation on treating doctors to take the unborn child's life into account in making clinical decisions regarding the women's care has changed.That obligation is now lessened under the Constitution, which means, if we are sincere about protecting unborn children's lives after viability, it is all the more necessary that the law says so and that we legislate to fill the gap that exists in the Constitution.

The 2013 legislation to which the Minister refers requires that any decision made to intervene shall have "regard to the need to preserve unborn life as far as practicable", but that is not in the legislation before us. Rather, the Bill defines termination of pregnancy as a procedure that intends to end the unborn child's life. That is what we mean by a section 10 intervention. The requirement is defined as a risk to life or a serious risk to health, but given that there is no time limit post viability after which doctors must do their best to save the child, that the procedure is intended to end the life of the child, that there is no distinction between a mental and a physical health ground, and that the medical practitioner does not have to be a psychiatrist or even have any expertise in the area, how can we all not at least agree that this is a wide-open, badly defined, dangerous section? The only thing we have to rely on is the Minister's statement that doctors are good and they will always try to save life, but that is directly contradicted by the legislation, in general, and particularly by the section and the definition, namely, that the procedure intends to end life.

There has not been any teasing-out of the reality of situations that can arise, either in the Dáil, although I did not hear everything that was said during the debate and I am open to correction, or in the Seanad thus far. Is the Minister saying that where physical health risk emerges in a post-viability situation, the only action a doctor might able to take is to terminate life simpliciter, and that imposing an obligation to do his or her best for the child if it is post viable would somehow lessen the medic's decision to act? That claim was never made about the 2013 legislation's requirement on doctors to do their best to preserve unborn life. We need to get real.

Is the Minister further saying if abortion is sought on a suddenly emerging mental health ground, and if the baby is post viable, there is a duty on doctors to save the child's life in that situation, even though the legislation concerns intending to end the life of the child? I ask these questions in all sincerity. Deputy Harris is the Minister for Health, while I am a Senator with some degree of legal training but I would not overestimate my capacity and I have been away from the Bar for a long time. I ask for simple honesty about what the words in the legislation mean, and what the lacunae in the legislation amount to. If we are not willing to discuss honestly the scenarios that might arise, such as those involving mental or physical health, those which may depend on the doctor who will make the decision, or those which may depend on what the stated request is, that is, whether it is to end the life of the foetus or whether it is a normal, legitimate medical intervention, we are not serious people or, worse, we are cynical people. I ask for detail about what will happen as a result of the legislation. It is not me but the Minister who says babies' lives will be saved in the post-viability situation, but that is not stated in the Bill, which is a significant issue of credibility that needs to be addressed.