Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

To add to what Senator Mullen has just said, the amendment or the addition of the new section is crystal clear. Part 1 provides the definition of born alive. Part 2 outlines what doctors should do. The Minister outlined that the guidelines cover that and that best medical practice would cover that in any event. There is no reason not to accept this amendment if that is the case because it would be totally compatible with the Minister's assertion that the medical guidelines and best professional practice would cover this in any event. There is no reason not to accept the amendment.

The pro-choice view is that life begins at birth and, if you follow that through, an abortion can go wrong and a baby is born alive, despite the objective to abort the baby and terminate the pregnancy. There are figures available from outside Ireland because this is new legislation here. The figures from Canada are not a snapshot in time. They are indisputable figures collated from the Federal Department of Health in Canada over a ten-year period. They are not just a snapshot of one year, six months or two weeks. This is a ten-year period where 491 babies were born alive. That means that, over that period and rounding the figures off, 50 babies in Canada are born alive per year. How many babies will be born alive as a result of the introduction of this legislation in Ireland? We do not know if it will be one, two, five or another amount. We do not know. What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is to ensure that, if those babies are born alive, they are not left to die on sterilising trays as happens in other jurisdictions. The Minister should have no difficulty whatsoever accepting this amendment if he is correct and it is covered under medical guidelines and by medical best practice. It is the most humane amendment possible.Is it just that the legislation is before the House, the political commitments have been given and, come Hell or high water, we are going to rush it through? The logical assumption is that we are not willing to take on board reasoned amendments because to do so would delay the Bill from reaching the political deadline of 1 January.

I know this amendment was raised in the other House but the other House can speak for itself. We are here to raise it in this House and there is nothing to stop the Minister from accepting the amendment. It would not delay the Bill as he could go back to the Dáil next week if he wanted but he should not put the political timeframe imperative ahead of an amendment such as this, which is the most humane amendment. If it is even possible, because of ambiguity in the Bill, that a baby could be born alive but left to die it would be horrific in the extreme. We are trying to clarify the ambiguity so that it does not happen. We do not want what happens in Canada and in the UK to happen here. The pro-choice side should also unite on this, given that these babies are already born. They are human beings in maternity wards in our hospitals and they would be left to die if this ambiguity is not cleared up. We are not sure of the number but we know it is 50 per year in Canada and the latest figure in England is 66 per cent.