Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Right away. As I have made clear, the obligation is on the doctor to offer the ultrasound. As I said, people who support rational action based on informed consent should be supportive of this amendment. Paternalism occurs in cases where one hears about a screen being turned away so that the woman could not observe or being told that she should not observe. This amendment does not provide for a woman having to see the ultrasound image against her will. It simply recognises that the offering of information is beneficial where it is done in a respectful way, having regard to the serious circumstances of crisis pregnancy, the need for sensitivity and the desirability, in the Minister's words, of helping to bring about a situation where abortion is rare. Knowledge might very well be the difference in the decision. As I have said, too many women have had to say, "If only I'd known and been told." The international experience, sadly, is of an abortion bandwagon that is so wedded to the idea of abortion as a social good, it holds back on sympathy and support insofar as it does not seek to provide information that might possibly lead to a change of mind. That is a sad reality within the abortion industry.

The debate in the Dáil on the issue of the provision of ultrasound scans, as on many issues, bordered on the surreal at times. One was almost left with the impression that ultrasound scans were some form of invasive procedure or some kind of cruel and unusual punishment. The Minister, Deputy Harris, used the very unfortunate phrase "subjected to an ultrasound". Women who are mothers or expectant mothers generally speak of their ultrasound in part trepidation and part joy. There is trepidation because there is always a chance that the scan might show some unwelcome or sad news but joy that they get to see their baby with their own eyes. I accept and realise that crisis pregnancy is very different but I have never heard ultrasound spoken of as if it were some kind of painful, onerous or unwelcome procedure, that is, until the recent Dáil debates. That is another first, and all in the name of the introduction of abortion, where a perfectly normal ordinary part of the diagnostic process in pregnancy is now portrayed as if it were some kind of outrageous burden.

I stress again that this amendment is about requiring doctors to offer an ultrasound. Its purpose is to ensure that a woman who wishes to view the ultrasound and hear the heartbeat can do so. It is as simple as that. It provides also for certain minimum standards in ultrasound monitoring to ensure clinical best practice. The section makes it absolutely clear that it is up to the woman whether she wishes to view the ultrasound. The notion of women being subjected to ultrasound, a perfectly normal procedure, is total nonsense designed to skew the issue. I hope it will not re-emerge in this Seanad debate on the subject.

There would be no ultrasound scans required in emergency situations unless it was deemed necessary for whatever reasons by the doctor handling the case. As with other amendments, this amendment does not restrict anyone's access to abortion under the Act. The fact that an ordinary, everyday scan for all women who are pregnant could be portrayed as a method of obstruction shows the depth to which the debate has sunk in many cases.

According to the testimony of Dr. Clíona Murphy of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at the health committee, it is thought that we should plan for a future in which the number of abortions will rise from approximately 4,000 now to 11,000, 12,000 or whatever figure was mentioned in the context of Scotland, which has a similar population to ours. We can also expect that approximately 30% of women will require a scan for uncertain dates if the Scottish experience is anything to go by.

Dr. Boylan, the same Dr. Boylan who is apparently being employed by the HSE to advise on the roll-out of abortion services, spoke about the infrastructural deficits in the system and the need to have adequate ultrasound provision in place. Has Dr. Boylan been pressing this view with the HSE and the Department of Health? Based on the Minister's replies on this issue in the Dáil, it would appear that is not the case and, if it is the case, he has not met with much success.

Dr. John O'Brien of the Irish College of General Practitioners and Dr. Mary Favier echoed these concerns and said that clinically speaking, the use of ultrasound was increasingly the preferred method of measuring gestational age as opposed to measuring based on the last menstrual period or LMP. I refer the Minister to a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology entitled, Routine ultrasound for pregnancy termination requests increases women's choice and reduces inappropriate treatment, by Catherine McGalliard and Marco Gaudoin.Their study found clear evidence that ultrasound led to a far more accurate measurement of gestational age. Measuring with reference to LMP tended to overestimate the gestational age which, in turn, led to women being offered surgical abortions unnecessarily when they could have been offered medical abortions because they were not as far along as had been initially thought. All of these points, whatever one's point of view on abortion, underscore the necessity of introducing a legal obligation for ultrasound to be performed and that it would involve an obligation on the doctor to make the offer.