The recent statement by the Medical Council that `the deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct' is notable for the support it received in most quarters. The only criticisms seem to have come from those who support the legalisation of abortion in one form or another.

The effect of the statement is to take the abortion debate out of the medical arena. While this may not please proponents of abortion legislation, it has the great virtue of reassuring women that abortion is never necessary to save their lives.

This is true even, and perhaps particularly, where there is a threat of suicide on the part of the mother, because current medical evidence actually points to an increase in the risk of suicide following abortion.

There has been an unhealthy tendency among some advocates of abortion to cause groundless fear among women about their health. Abortion is tragic enough already and we owe it to those who are most personally involved never to deviate from the facts, however they may challenge an ideological position.

The Medical Council's clarification on abortion is welcome for another reason. It contradicts the very basis of the Supreme Court decision in the X case. Indeed it is an indication of the lack of medically-substantiated grounds for abortion that proponents of legislation are forced to rely on the X ruling (which considered no medical evidence), to justify their position.

Yet it is extraordinary that after two referendums, the X and C cases, the receipt of over 500 submissions by the Medical Council and open debates at annual general meetings of the Irish Medical Organisation, there are still some who feel aggrieved at the supposed absence of debate on abortion within the medical profession and who accuse the Medical Council of missing an opportunity to stimulate a debate.

Perhaps this indicates a basic misunderstanding of the role of the Medical Council. Like any other authority charged with setting ethical standards for a profession, its task is to issue clear guidelines to its members, not to produce a discussion document.

This is even more important in areas which affect the very nature of the profession itself, in this case the care of other human beings. Hence the clarity and simplicity of its statement on abortion.

Recently, there have been calls for a calm and reasonable debate on abortion and I warmly welcome these sentiments. The debate also needs to be honest and, central to this, we must not allow ourselves to lose sight casually of the humanity of the unborn child.

The stark reality that any form of legislation, before a constitutional referendum, would allow for abortion up to birth, since the X decision set no time limits, is an affront to both mothers and their unborn children.

The Law is part of the problem, and therefore the law must be a part of the solution. Clarity of expression and terminology will remain vital if we want to keep the welfare of both mother and baby firmly in focus.

Senator Mary Henry, in her recent article in this newspaper, accuses the Medical Council of having recourse to euphemism in an attempt to disguise the true nature of procedures which are done to treat the mother but which may involve risk to the life of the foetus.

But her charge is based on a false premise. In asserting that abortion is medically defined as `termination of a pregnancy before the foetus is viable', Senator Henry omits to explain that this is a definition of spontaneous abortion, i.e., the medical term for miscarriage.

In addition, she does not make the distinction between an action performed with the sole intention of treating a medical condition of the mother and an action performed deliberately to end the life of the foetus. Any effect on the unborn in the first case is an unwanted side effect of standard and necessary medical treatment. In the second case, it is an abortion.

To get a definition of induced or procured abortion, which is what Senator Henry and everybody else is talking about, the words "deliberate" and "intentional" are helpful and these are precisely the words used by the Medical Council. The Council deserves credit rather than criticism for so carefully setting out the difference between a standard medical procedure which may result in the unintended death of the unborn child and the deliberate attack on human life which abortion involves.

The medical difficulty resolved, there remains the need to reaffirm in our Constitution the dignity and humanity of all human life, including its right to protection.

And the further challenge which faces us all, regardless of our views on abortion, is to change society and change ourselves, so that each and every woman who finds herself facing a crisis pregnancy finds an understanding and welcoming society offering real and practical alternatives to abortion.

Dr Berry Kiely is a medical doctor and a spokesperson for the Pro-Life Campaign.