Seanad debates

Monday, 10 December 2018

Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018: Committee Stage

 

2:00 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I oppose these proposed amendments. I would have thought that examination would always include a degree of consultation.We need to be clear here again that what we have in this Bill is legislation that in one section provides for abortion up to 12 weeks without a reason having to be given. We can say that that is elective abortion. It is not grounded in any medical claim. In all of the other situations, I have said I find very troubling in their X scope. One is talking about medicalising the grounds for abortion. Therefore, one is departing from the terrain of choice into the terrain of medical necessity.

If one is arguing then that abortion should be legal from the point of view of being a medical necessity, why would one relativise the importance of the doctor's examination? We have to be honest and recognise that what has happened in Britain is that medical grounds for abortion have led to abortion on demand. We have had the situation where doctors certify abortions in advance by signing forms without ever having seen the woman involved. To talk about examination where necessary, and consultation where possible, suggests that there are situations where it is not necessary for a doctor to conduct an examination even though this is to do with sections that provide and claim some medical need. As to consultation where possible, I would have thought that consultation is always possible and, ideally, within the context of a medical examination and beyond that. So the suggestion of consultation, where possible, really makes that obligation to consult too indefinite. If a doctor is contacted about a woman in another part of the country, could that doctor certify without examination because it is not possible to do so due to geographical distance, being busy or whatever it is? We are a long way from medical treatments here if that were to be envisaged. Would this amendment open the door to certification based on hearsay where a doctor has heard from somebody who purports to speak for the woman involved?

In terms of the amendment tabled by Senator Higgins, who decides whether examining is necessary? The certifying doctors would decide. The mere fact that they are involved in the certification process shows that they are satisfied to be involved in abortion and, indeed, one of them will perform it. Would there be any doubt about their decisions? They might more easily conclude that it is not necessary to examine or consult.

I am concerned in the positive sense by language that talks about how important it is that examinations would not be intrusive. Again, I respectfully ask for clarity when we talk about those things because we are talking about medical procedures here that are intended to end the life of an unborn child. I would agree that medical examinations should never be too intrusive. They should only be so intrusive as is necessary to secure the patient's welfare. What are we talking about when we talk about intrusive or invasive? We are speaking, ironically, on the 70th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is beyond issue that the procedures that we are talking about here will be both intrusive and invasive on the other subject involved, namely, the unborn child. Again, I would urge the need for clarity in all of these matters.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.