Sir, – Since January 2002, I have sought compassionate treatment for the unviable unborn and its parents. In 2006 the then Fianna Fáil government defended its position on my action against Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights by stating that I had not exhausted domestic remedies (ie, taking an action against the State while pregnant).
It seems that the legislature wants to have pregnant women in court, dead or alive, so that it can adjudicate on their unviable unborn. Government after government has demonstrated that it does not trust our doctors.
In D v Ireland (European Court of Human Rights 2006), the State's expert opinion suggested that "remorseless logic" would not be applied to Article 40.3.3 in relation to the "unborn" and that if, tested in court, the interpretation of "unborn" may not be applied to an unviable foetus that has no prospect of being "born".
I now ask our politicians again, 13 years after being told my unborn had no prospect of life outside the womb, that women should not suffer the exponential sadness of being sent away to deliver early.
Successive governments have treated the issue as a gamble too far in the teeth of an election. It is high time the issue of termination for medical reasons in the case of fatal foetal abnormality was dissociated from politics.
If, by an unfortunate gestational anomaly, an incompatibility with life has occurred, and we have the medical technology to inform us, women should not be forced to continue incubating as human ventilators. We want to safely deliver and respectfully bury our unborn. Not have them sent home as ashes in the post, as has been the case for many parents.
Obstetricians differ from politicians; they are in the business of caring for mothers for the long haul, not relentlessly seeking re-election, power and position.
Where their expertise is engaged, it is the doctor over the politician who should, in conjunction with the parents, decide what is best.
For this reason, I urge the present Government to accede to the majority wish that the eighth amendment should be repealed on the next referendum day. The mother of a non-viable unborn should not have to be dead to receive respect, assistance and compassion. – Yours, etc,
DEIRDRE CONROY,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – I do not find Michael McDowell's opinions in relation to doctors shirking their responsibilities to be argued "persuasively", as described in your editorial in relation to matters surrounding the recent tragic case of maternal death ("End of family's agonising ordeal", December 29th).
All arguably ethical actions are not necessarily legal, and acting according to your ethical assessments and beliefs, or in your perception of the best interests of a patient, is not a defence in law if your actions are deemed to be prohibited by law.
What are doctors to do, particularly in non-urgent scenarios, but to hold off and seek legal advice and/or judicial determination if they are uncertain as to the legality of their proposed action in these very rare cases?
Lawyers can be wrong with impunity, but for doctors it is not so easy. If greater discretion is needed for doctors in these difficult cases, it should be provided in law. – Yours, etc,
Dr TOM HOGAN,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
A chara, – Wisdom, tempered with compassion, has prevailed and the court has ruled that the indignity this woman was enduring may come to an end, along with the ordeal her family was suffering. I hope they will be given the privacy they need to grieve their double loss.
Trying to find something positive in this whole grim situation, at least there is now some legal precedent to help prevent anything similar from occurring again. I sincerely pray it does not. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – The recent sad case of the pregnant woman on life support has unleashed a tirade of criticism of the eight amendment, Article 40.3.3, including in the pages of your newspaper.
The article in question simply declares the equality before the law of mother and child, as far as is practicable, and the Constitution is just the place for such a declaration of principle.
As with any article of the Constitution, it must be supported by effective legislation that remains true to the purpose and spirit of the article, so that there isn’t constant recourse to the courts.
However, as with any article, no matter how carefully phrased, the issue may ultimately end up in court.
Even if the eighth amendment hadn’t existed, this case or a similar one may have ended up in the courts anyway, as we have seen with similar cases in other jurisdictions.
The amendment is one of the most explicit equality measures in the Constitution, and yet those who would normally champion equality remain silent, if they’re not actually attacking the measure. It is also one of the most explicit child protection measures, and those who would normally champion children’s rights are silent.
The principle declared in the amendment protects the unborn child from the excesses of abortion we have seen in other countries and if it is removed a whole group of the vulnerable will be under threat.
Do we really need to create another scandal that future generations will berate us for? – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN O’REGAN,
Arklow,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Constructive ambiguity may be justified to resolve political difficulties. It has no place in legal provisions concerning matters of life and death. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK WARD,
Kilkenny.
Sir, – Since it was introduced in 1983 the eighth amendment to the Constitution has caused havoc in the legal system and unimaginable distress and suffering to those affected by it. All of the cases concerning this amendment have highlighted the dangers of tinkering with the Constitution. This amendment, which was hailed by its supporters as double-bolting the door against the legalisation of abortion, achieved exactly the opposite.
It is time that the Irish electorate deleted it in full. – Yours, etc,
TIM BRACKEN,
Cork.