Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 10, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:“Protection of Infants born alive

13.(1) In this section “born alive” means the complete emergence of a foetus from the body of the woman, regardless of the state of gestational development, who, after emergence, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached, and regardless of whether the emergence occurs as a result of natural or induced labour, caesarean section, termination of pregnancy or otherwise, shows any evidence of life including, but not limited to, one or more of the following:

(a) breathing;

(b) a heartbeat;

(c) umbilical cord pulsation; or

(d) definite movement of voluntary muscles.

(2) In this section “infant” means a foetus who has been born alive as a result of the carrying out or attempted carrying out of a termination of pregnancy under this Act.

(3) A medical practitioner shall take all steps as may be appropriate and practicable to preserve the life of an infant.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that the infant has been born alive as a result of the carrying out or attempted carrying out of a termination of pregnancy under this Act shall not be a relevant consideration for a medical practitioner when determining what constitutes an appropriate and/or practicable step under subsection (3).”.

The amendment adds a new section that would place an onus on a doctor to make every reasonable effort to protect the life of a baby who is born alive as a result of an abortion carried out or attempted. The amendment is similar to other amendments we have tabled in that it contains measures we would have expected to be present in the Bill from the beginning. It makes clear for doctors what is to be done when an abortion does not result in the death of an unborn baby, as intended in the procedure. It places responsibility on doctors in these cases to respect the baby that has been born alive rather than abandon him or her to certain death through neglect. It is not too much to ask for in these rare but real cases that occur. We should always err on the side of protecting the new individual who has come into the world in such awful circumstances. Manufacturing excuses for why a baby in these circumstances should not receive basic medical care and protection is the inverse of the social solidarity and respect that should be the mark of any civilised society.

The amendment is careful not to set a singular approach to apply in all cases. It leaves room for medical practitioners to take the appropriate action depending on the circumstances. Such circumstances include the gestational stage of the pregnancy and the likelihood, based on that, of whether the baby stands a chance of survival and so on. The intent of the amendment is perfectly clear. It places an onus on medical practitioners to do their best to preserve life in these situations where practicable. The amendment is based on real-life experiences in other countries where babies born alive after botched abortions have been routinely left to die without receiving any medical care. Let us stop for a minute to think about this. In 2018, countries that pride themselves on their human rights records have allowed the inhumanity of abandoning a baby to certain death because he or she survived an abortion. This is not only tolerated but routinely practised.

If the strategy of some colleagues is to ignore amendments seeking to make the Bill less extreme, I appeal to them to consider this amendment and ask themselves whether it is right that, in the rare cases where it occurs, we should turn away from a helpless baby that has just been aborted but has survived. I appeal to colleagues to concede that it is our responsibility as a humane society to rally to his or her aid. We may be uncomfortable with the reality placed before the House that babies survive abortion. Some may even regard it as extreme to even raise these issues. My response is that we should be uncomfortable and that we have no right to lightly dismiss the amendment, which is based on the horrific reality of what happens in other countries and what will happen here if we do not rule for these circumstances. We have to face uncomfortable truths. We cannot hide behind them. We were elected to face tough realities and not pretend that we do not exist.

Official figures from Canada, for instance, show the prevalence of such cases over a ten-year period.Starting in 2000, 491 babies who survived botched abortions were abandoned by medical staff and left to die alone without care in hospitals. In Britain the confidential inquiry into maternal and child health revealed that in 2005, 66 babies in England and Wales had been born alive and left unaided to die after failed abortions. The amendment we are debating would make sure such an outrage could not happen here. It would not interfere with access to abortion but ensure the outrageous human rights abuse of abandoning a baby that has just been born would not be allowed to happen here. If we dismiss the amendment, it is inevitable that babies will be born alive after botched abortions in this country and left to die unaided, just like what happens in other countries.

This is not a time for denial or deflecting blame onto the sponsors of the amendment. It is a moment of truth for all of us. I plead with the Minister and colleagues not to dismiss the amendment out of hand. Research by Amarach Research conducted very soon after the referendum in May found that 69% of voters believed babies who survived the abortion procedure should be given medical care and not abandoned. Only 9% of the public disagreed, while other respondents did not know. The amendment identifies criteria such as breathing, having a heart beat, umbilical cord pulsation or movement of muscles that should be taken into account and a doctor would then be obliged to act to protect the life of a child. It is normal practice in countries in which abortion has been legalised that doctors in one part of a hospital are doing everything possible to save a premature baby born at 23 weeks, while in another part of the same hospital a baby at 24 weeks gestation is having his or her life ended by abortion. The only difference between the two babies is that one is wanted and the other is not. The amendment would make sure the horror we have seen in other countries of babies being left to die would not happen here. The amendment would not prevent access to abortion or stop a woman from availing of what was legal. However, it would be a terrible tragedy if we could not even unite on the idea that babies who survive an abortion should not be left to die without receiving medical care and aid.

There is not much more I can say. To put it simply, the objective of the procedure is to end the life of the baby, but where it goes wrong and the unborn baby is born alive, the original objective ends and medical care and the intervention of the doctor should focus on saving the life of the baby. It is a very humane amendment. I appeal sincerely to the better consciences of the Minister and all Members to accept it. It would do nothing to deter the Minister's objectives. It would simply provide for more humane treatment. It objective is to ensure, rather than leaving a baby to die on a sterilising tray, medical aid would be provided.