Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is clear to the Minister and colleagues from all of the amendments I have tabled with Senators Ó Domhnaill and Coghlan that we accept the reality that we cannot turn around this dreadful legislation. What we have sought to do in everything is to bring clarity and a modicum of humanity to what we regard as very inhumane. The forgetfulness of the dignity of the life of the unborn child that runs throughout the legislation should not be compounded by a lack of concern about what should happen in the event that the unborn child survives the abortion process, the termination of pregnancy or the process intended to end the life of the foetus, as the legislation defines it throughout. The amendment would require a doctor to take all appropriate and practicable steps to preserve the life of an infant born alive as a result of the carrying out or the attempted carrying out of a termination of pregnancy. In many ways, some of the issues refer back to ones we raised earlier about viability and the need to exclude a direct attack on human life after reaching viability. This provision should surely have been included in the Bill from the outset since it recognises inherent and basic human dignity, even if it is disregarded elsewhere in the Bill. The amendment would make it clear that in the rare circumstances where unborn babies survived an abortion procedure - it does occur, despite what Members of the Dáil would have us believe - there would be a duty to act to save their lives. It does not attempt to prescribe the exact measures medical practitioners should find appropriate in any given case. It would simply require them to take all steps that might be appropriate and practicable to preserve the life of an infant. We do use the word "appropriate". This would not be an onerous requirement and would not interfere with the "rights" conferred in the legislation to access abortion in particular cases. It would give doctors leeway in exercising their reasonable clinical judgment, although, obviously, I question the clinical judgment involved in abortion, formed in good faith on what was practicable.

I must work in imperfect situations and ask for mercy which is really what the amendment is asking for. It is asking for mercy. There is no future for most of the children that will be affected by this legislation, but the amendment asks for mercy where a child is actually born alive. It would not require "extraordinary measures" to be taken to sustain life for the reasons outlined previously as to why the decision to use this phrase in the definition of viability is a poor one. What is reasonable and practicable will vary with circumstances, including, in particular, the stage of gestation of the unborn child. Naturally, different considerations would apply if the infant was born alive after reaching the point of viability. All of these decisions would left to the clinical judgment of doctors, but there should be a requirement that where a child is born alive, as we define it in the amendment, to provide care.

To me, it was unbelievable that in the other House, the directly elected Chamber, there were Members who disputed the fact that unborn babies ever survived abortion procedures. It was Deputy Kate O’Connell who referred in the Dáil last week to alleged survivors of botched abortions and anecdotes as fairy tales and stories that essentially had dubious sources.The Minister is not responsible for what Deputy O'Connell said but he did not take exception to the comments made. It was a disgraceful insult, both to those who have survived abortion procedures and to parents of children who have survived the procedures and who have gone on to regret what happened but were grateful that the baby survived.

In Britain, the confidential inquiry into maternal and child health revealed that in 2005, 66 babies in England and Wales were born alive and left unaided to die after failed abortions. I have not heard that statistic disputed. Nadine Dorries is a backbench Tory MP who is much in the news of late because of her position on Brexit. She is a trained nurse and has spoken about how she witnessed two botched abortions.

In Canada, as has been said, official statistics show that from 2000 to 2009, 491 babies survived abortions, were abandoned by medical staff and left to die without care. This amendment asks for mercy.

These are not anecdotes or fairy tales, they are the official government statistics from the UK and Canada. Colleagues will recall that last year, the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, visited Ireland and raised the issue of abortion with the Taoiseach. It struck me at the time that in fact it should have been the other way around. It was the Taoiseach who should have raised this shocking abuse of human rights and human dignity with Mr. Trudeau and protested vigorously. An average of 50 babies are born alive after abortions and left to die in Canada every year. Perhaps if this was happening in a developing world country we would be appalled, but when it happens in a wealthy First World country in the context of the provision of so called safe and legal abortion, some of us manage to find it perfectly acceptable. We would never question what happens in Britain or Canada, but why is that so? Do we not seriously need to reassess our values if 50 children could be left to die every year and that is something which does not cause deep revulsion and people in high places do not seem to be bothered that nothing is done to prevent anything similar from possibly happening here? That is what this amendment is about. It does not limit access to abortion, it just avoids a shocking and incredibly inhumane outcome of an attempted abortion, as occurs in other countries.

I accept that where it might happen, it will generate obligations of the State, perhaps in cases where the baby needs care being brought up. There may or may not, depending on the specific situation, be a desire from the parents or mother to bring the baby onwards from there. I accept that life is complicated but it is not this amendment that makes it complicated. It is the cruel reality of this Bill, that generates the need for this amendment, which seeks to mitigate the injustice somewhat.

Amárach Research recently found that 69% of adults believe that where an unborn baby survives the abortion procedure and is born alive, doctors should be obliged to give medical care to the baby to preserve his or her life. Only 9% disagreed. It must be wondered who those 9% are. They include several Members of the Oireachtas who deny that the issue even exists, which I greatly regret, but Senator Ó Domhnaill and I and others, who propose this amendment while facing defeat, stand on this issue for 69% of adults, according to Amárach Research.

I also want to raise the separate but somewhat connected issue of the treatment of children who are born alive but with serious genetic conditions or terminal illnesses and I want to specifically raise the provision of perinatal hospice care. As the Minister knows, we are well behind the curve in the provision of such care and much remains to be done in the future. It is a sad reality that very little was done to offer such care to mothers and families who received the devastating diagnosis that their child had a terminal illness, although in some cases-----