Tag Archives: Abortion

Jennifer Schweppe (above), from the school of law at the University of Limerick, appeared at the Joint Committee on Health and Children hearing on abortion legislation this morning..

She said that, it is her understanding, that women who have been told their foetuses have zero chance of survival are legally permitted to have terminations in Ireland.

She claimed this is based on the Roche Vs Roche ruling in the Supreme Court in December, 2009.

This case involved Mary Roche, then 43, who was estranged from her husband, but who wanted to use three frozen embryos created from a previous IVF treatment, to have more children.

Mr Roche did not want this to take place.

Mrs Roche argued that the frozen embryos constituted the ‘unborn’ under Article 40.3.3 of the constitution. She claimed the State was ‘obliged to facilitate their implantation’.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the term ‘unborn’ in Article 40.3.3 only applies to embryos after they’ve been implanted in the womb. It doesn’t apply to frozen embryos and therefore, they cannot be afforded the legal right to life as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The now Chief Justice Susan Denham ruled there must be a physical connection between the mother and her unborn child in order for the embryo to be afforded the right to life.

Jennifer Schweppe: “My position on this is, and I think that I’m correct in stating the law as to be, where the foetus has no capacity to survive outside the womb, that that is not life for the purposes of Article 40.3.3. So when we talk about ‘unborn life’ in the constitution what we’re talking about, as Ms Justice Denham,stated in the Roche and Roche case, we’re talking about life which has the capacity to be born.

Now in that case, it did relate to embryos, so embryos which were implanted in the womb. But I think that her reason and her logic in relation to what the constitution protects and what it doesn’t protect, I think it applies in relation to foetuses which have absolutely no capacity to be brought to term and to produce a living baby. I don’t think that Article 40.3.3 applies there.
“Perhaps, as a matter of clarity, the legislation should, in a declaratory manner, state that. But I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment where, as a matter of probability, doctors are of the opinion that the foetus has no capacity to be born. I think that that’s the legal situation.
“The problem I guess arises where doctors are of the opinion that the foetus has the capacity to be born but that it will only survive for a short period of time, be it a matter of days, a matter of weeks. Tragically, I think that in circumstances such as that the constitution does not permit termination of pregnancy and unfortunately women in that position do currently need to travel to terminate those pregnancies.
“I don’t agree with this position. I didn’t see the Vincent Browne show last night [Arlette Lyons from from the group Termination For Medical Reasons (TFMR)] appeared] but I think that a constitutional amendment would be required in those cases, where there is prospect of life outside the womb, where the pregnancy is a viable one. But where we talk about inevitable miscarriage, as Dr [Simon] Mills [who had spoken earlier] talked about, where we talk about where the foetus has no capacity to be born alive. So, adopting the born to alive rule, I don’t think a constitutional amendment is needed, I do think that legislation should include a declaratory statement to that effect and permit medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies in those circumstances.”

Anyone?

Earlier: What Rhona Said

(RTE)

Dr Rhona Mahony (above), Master of the National Maternity Hospital addressed the Join Committee On Health and Children’s hearing on the Expert Group report on the need for abortion legislation yesterday .

This is what she told them:

Dr Rhona Mahony: “ I’m very pleased to accept your invitation to attend today. I wish you every success in addressing what I think is a most important and most complex issue and I hope that I will be of some assistance. It’s my belief that we are all here today with the primary objective of preserving life.

“By way of introduction, I am the master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, I’m a practising obstetrician and I’m also a specialist in foetal and maternal medicine. That means that I have cared for women whose pregnancies are complicated by either maternal or foetal disease.

The National Maternity Hospital is one of the busiest hospitals in Europe and it delivers over 9,000 babies annually, where one in eight babies in the state of Ireland. We are a tertiary referral centre which means we look after some of the most complicated pregnancies in Ireland. In addition to our own hospital population, we look after women referred to us from other obstetric units around the country. These women require additional expertise in dealing with the variety of complications that may arise, either de novo, or as a result of pre-existing maternal disease.

The primary reason for my presence today is to help you understand why it is that we, as doctors, need enhanced legal protection in dealing with clinical situations where a pregnant woman may die and where treatment to save her life may include termination of pregnancy.

I wish to make one thing very clear today. If there is any chance, any chance at all, that a baby will survive at the threshold of viability, every effort will be made to save that baby. That must not be an issue today. Regularly we look after babies at the threshold of viability with excellent results, by international standard. Our neo-natal intensive care is a national resource which cares for babies born as early as 23 weeks gestation and who weigh as little as 500g, even less in some cases.

At the moment in Ireland, doctors practice medicine in relation to pregnancy with a degree of legal uncertainty. It is as far back as 1861 that the Offences Against the Person Act, specifically sections 58 and 59 decreed that abortion in Ireland is a criminal offence, punishable by a life of penal servitude for both the woman and her doctor or anyone who assists her in procuring an abortion. This law remains today. It was to be over 130 years later, before the Supreme Court judged that termination of pregnancy was admissible in the very rare circumstance of a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health of a mother.

As we all know, the risk to life in this case was the risk of this young girl taking her own life because of her distress at being pregnant. Twenty years later, the anticipated legislation that might have come from this has not been enacted. And, therefore, there is a degree of legal uncertainty in how we interpret the Supreme Court judgement and whether or not the Offences Against the Person Act is, in fact, precedent, it remains law.

In the meantime, it’s quite interesting. We’ve passed a variety of referenda which allow women access to information on termination of pregnancy outside this jurisdiction. Women are allowed…We’ve had a referendum that allows women travel to alternative jurisdiction for termination of pregnancy, despite the fact that such a thing remains a criminal offence within this country.

We’ve twice held referenda to remove suicide ideation as an indication for termination of pregnancy but we have not yet managed, I believe, to address the legal uncertainty surrounding termination of pregnancy in the very narrow, narrow, rare context, where we believe there’s a genuine risk to the life of the woman, where a woman may die as a complication of her pregnancy, that could be saved by terminating her pregnancy.

So, in very rare circumstances, doctors are faced with the task of making highly complex, clinical decisions, based on medical probability but without the luxury of, without the luxury of medical certainty. It is imperative that we have flexibility to do so, to make decisions based on medical fact. It is imperative that we have legal protection to do this.

The State demands of us that we save lives wherever we can and we must do this. This is our job. If a woman is critically ill and it is very obvious that she is likely to die and she will be saved by intervening and treating her and that treatment involves interrupting or terminating the pregnancy, we will not hesitate to do so. And society, women may be absolutely reassured that we will not hesitate to do so.

The difficulty arises when the risk to life is not immediate. And, so for example, the woman who has a serious underlying medical disorder. She may be sitting in front of you now. But the additional burden of the physiology of pregnancy on organs that are already burdened and already challenged – may pose a very significant and substantial risk to her life. Doctors need to have the flexibility to make appropriate, clinical judgement, not based on ideology, not based on philosophy but based on medical circumstance. That is what the State demands of us.

And you know, we must acknowledge, very tragically, sometimes women die during pregnancy. In fact, about eight women out of every 100,000 maternities in Ireland die as a result, during pregnancy. Some of these cases, women may die either because of direct pregnancy complications or they may die from totally incidental causes like a road traffic accident, or they may die of indirect causes, for example they may have a serious underlying morbidity, the additional pregnancy may such challenge her, that she may die.

And, in fact, if we look back at maternal deaths, this country recently produced a report into maternal deaths in Ireland between the years 2009 and 2011. There was six deaths arising directly from pregnancy complications but, double that number, 13 deaths, arising in women who had pre-existing medical disease. Five of these women had pre-existing cardiovascular disease, two of these women died of suicide, two of these women died of flu and a variety of other medical causes, including liver disease and lung disease.

Interestingly, however, it is my experience that in many cases, women with serious, underlying medical disease will choose to continue their pregnancy in the knowledge that they may die. In other words, women will risk their own lives to reproduce. However, some women, faced with a significant risk of their own mortality will not wish to continue their pregnancy and this brings us to the very difficult issue of defining what is a substantial risk to life during pregnancy – a 10% risk? a 50% risk? an 80% risk? a 1% risk of dying?

The interpretation of risk is not the same for all people. And, you know, a woman herself will have a view as to what is an acceptable risk of her dying during pregnancy. Her opinion deserves to be afforded consideration. Clinical flexibility, supported by law is required. Doctors must be able to make sound, common sense, medical decisions based on medical conditions and medical circumstances, not ever on ideology or philosophy. But they must be protected in the law to do that if they are able to carry out their job to the best of their ability and what doctors want to do, and make no mistake, is to preserve life.

This is all about preserving life.

Over the last few months we’ve listened to a wide variety of opinion. Some of this opinion has been extreme and absolute, at times unhelpful and, I would argue, at times, even misleading. I believe this forum will hopefully provide an opportunity for informed and mature debate. I believe the outcome of your important work will underpin society’s wish to protect life as far as possible.

Perhaps the most controversial issue and I bring it up now is that issue of death during pregnancy as a result of suicide. Attempts have been made to confuse the risk of death from suicide by quoting figures relating to death from mental disorder, all mental disorders. Not, specifically, we’re talking here specifically about the very small and tiny number of women who present wishing to take their life during pregnancy.

Now, I’m not a psychiatrist and I absolutely appreciate that you will be addressed later by a specialist in the area of psychiatry and, of course, I defer to them. But could I just say, as a woman, that I’m offended by some of the perjorative and judgemental views that women will manipulate doctors in order to obtain termination of pregnancy, on the basis of fabricated ideas of suicide ideation or intent. There also seems to be an assumption that psychiatrists are unable to assess the issue of suicide ideation, something they do every day in their clinical practice.

“I don’t believe we have the right to absolutely dismiss the risk of a woman taking her life during pregnancy. Women will occasionally, we know, that women will occasionally, rarely, but they will occasionally take their own lives during pregnancy. Women who are so distressed that they will consider taking their own lives, they need to be listened to, they need to be believed and they need appropriate, medical care. That will not necessarily include termination of pregnancy but in a small, tiny percentage of cases, it just might.

Finally. Let’s remember the women and children who’ve brought us here today and yes, I use the word children. The X case. Let nobody in this room forget the circumstances of this case. This is the story of a 14-year-old child who was raped and who found herself pregnant and was so distressed by her circumstance that, at the age of 14, she wished to take her own life. Let nobody forget her because she’s real. Thank you.”

Thanks OC

Pic: RTE

A bilateral meeting between the church and Government Ministers is scheduled for next week as part of an ongoing “structured dialogue” process, while the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference will appear before the Oireachtas health committee on Thursday morning.

The Government has been taken aback by the language used by bishops as the debate on abortion continues. The four Catholic Archbishops of Ireland have said that if what was being proposed became law, “it would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children”.

Bishop Leo O’Reilly of Kilmore [above] described it as the “first step on the road to a culture of death”. 

Church to bring abortion concerns to Coalition (Mary Minihan, Irish Times)

(Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland)

Yup.

“In the other side of the argument, in regard to the inclusion of suicide, there are no regulations there. It will be the duty of Government, in working with people, to put in a clarification and restrictions that this does not in anyway become abortion on demand or that abortion is seen as a form of contraception.”

 

Enda Kenny on France 24.

 

Interview: Enda Kenny (France24)

“This is expected to allow the fear of suicide as a ground for abortion but may not provide for rape or sexual abuse, neither of which formed part of the X-case ruling.”

 

If this morning’s Irish Times is correct Ireland will still remain as one of the most restrictive countries in Europe (along with Malta, and principalities Andorra and San Marino) – as it still won’t allow for a termination in cases of rape or incest or where there is an foetal abnormality.

Such circumstances are covered in Poland, also regarded as highly restrictive.

Readers may know of a recent case there which bore a disturbing resemblance to Ireland’s X case.

It involved a 14-year-old rape victim, named as P, who obtained a certificate to say she had been raped which allowed her to have a legal abortion.

However, she was refused an abortion at two hospitals, largely down to harassment from pro-life groups.

From the BBC:

At one, a Roman Catholic priest attempted to convince her to have the child. Hospital management then issued a press release saying they would not perform the procedure, leading to her case becoming caught up in Poland’s ongoing debate about abortion. The girl then travelled to a hospital in Warsaw, but doctors there said they were under pressure not to go ahead with the procedure.

The court documents say the pair left the hospital “feeling manipulated and helpless”, after which they were harassed by pro-life groups and eventually taken in for several hours of police questioning. The authorities then accused the mother of trying to force her daughter into having an abortion and had “P” placed in a juvenile shelter. She eventually managed to go ahead with the termination in Gdansk, 500km from her home, after the Ministry of Health intervened in the case.’

Her case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that Poland violated the 14-year-old girl’s rights by denying her access to abortion and also ruled against Poland’s authorities for wrongly accusing P’s mother of forcing her to have an abortion and placing P in a juvenile centre.

So, If Ireland doesn’t rule for cases of rape or incest, won’t we wind back up before the ECHR?

Anyone?

The World Abortion Map

The ECtHR Rules Against Poland In Abortion Rape Case (Public Interest Law Alliiance)

Earlier: A,B,C And X-Mas