As a private citizen, I find it strange to be offering an opinion on a proposed piece of legislation, because in reality it is a public statement of how one intends to vote. Many people, myself included, feel that a vote is an absolutely personal thing to be shared with the fewest number of people possible, or indeed none at all.

In this instance, however, for the reasons given below, I am quite happy to offer my view and say how I intend to vote. In so doing, I am aware of the criticism that I have made many times in the past of my senior colleagues and that it is their expectation that their views should be weighted heavily.

It has always seemed to me that the availability or otherwise in Ireland of termination of pregnancy for the 5,000 or so Irish women who go to Britain every year is not predominantly a medical matter but one for society in general.

Of course through contraception, doctors do have a role in preventing such pregnancies; of course it is medically qualified people who perform the procedure and who give the anaesthetics as necessary.

How the termination may be carried out is a medical decision but whether they are carried out at all is largely a decision for society rather than medical personnel.

These referendum proposals specifically exclude the vast majority of women who go to Britain so I feel it is not unreasonable to offer a medical perspective on the Bill as it stands.

Undoubtedly the exclusion of the 5,000 or so Irish women who go to Britain will cause considerable anger and anguish in some quarters but in reality, despite the recent vote at the Labour Party conference, this was never unlikely to be a realistic option.

So does the Bill address my concerns as a practising obstetrician and gynaecologist? From my perspective, and I appreciate I have a particular view on this issue, there are both good and bad elements to it.

For example, I would have preferred that a medical procedure designed to destroy an unborn human life would be defined as an abortion irrespective as to the justification for doing it.

I feel that an abortion which is carried out for purposes of saving the mother's life should not be covered by the that term is torturing the language in order to appease our religious heritage.

I also have reservations concerning the fact that the risk of suicide has been removed specifically as a justification for termination. I personally have never seen a patient where termination is necessary for psychiatric reasons, but I have the niggling fear that some day I might.

I fully appreciate that the threat of suicide can be easily made and could prove to be the thin edge of the wedge, but I am still unhappy that a specific cohort of patients are being excluded for no better reason than their inclusion could be open to misinterpretation.

Having said that, I have discussed this element with psychiatric colleagues whose opinion I would respect and have been somewhat some reassured that termination is never part of the treatment of depression.

A third reservation that I would have would be the fact that in my opinion there should be a second opinion in order to effect a legal termination of pregnancy on medical grounds.

The reality is no practitioner when dealing with a sick woman would ever undertake such a decision without consulting widely and I feel the current correct practice should have been recognised.

There are certain elements of the proposed Bill which I feel are very worthwhile. The definition, for example, of abortion, is I feel both useful and workable (that is with the previously stated reservation that an abortion is not an abortion if it is done to save the life of the mother).

The definition used focuses the debate very closely on the question of abortion and does not allow the related but different topics of contraception and assisted reproduction to get mixed up together.

The most obvious benefit in this Bill from a gynaecologist's point of view is that a seriously ill mother can now be offered a termination of pregnancy in this State if it is done to save her life.

This is a very rare event and when it was done in the past there was genuine doubt in the minds of practitioners whether they were breaking the law.

To know with certainty that recognised medical practice is legal is a considerable comfort for these very unusual cases. The greatest difficulty that I see it presenting obstetricians is that there is no mention of foetal abnormalities.

While I appreciate that termination for foetal abnormalities is prohibited here, I feel strongly that there should be some particular support available to these woman who frequently have late terminations carried out under particularly difficult circumstances.

I hope that the new crisis pregnancy agency will address this concern and enable hospitals to deal with this particularly unfortunate group of women in a humane and helpful manner.

In some regards, I feel like the Dubliner who wants to get home at 3 a.m. on Saturday morning. There is no prospect of getting a taxi to take me to my precise destination, so the Nitelink beckons.

Not only will the Nitelink not take me exactly where I want it to go but I am a little bit concerned there might be a few people on it with whom I would not normally wish to journey.

However, as the bus in going in the right general direction, I do not see that I have any great option and I will take it.

This rather weak analogy is only an attempt to postpone what I consider to be a very private affair; I will be voting yes, it seems it's the best chance that I have got and there may not be another one along for a very long time.

Dr Peter McKenna is Master of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin. He gave evidence to the all-party Oireachtas committee that examined the Constitutional, legal, social and medical aspects of abortion. This commentary is written in his personal capacity.