Sir, – I was sickened to read the article “Priest on Mater board rules out abortions at hospital” (Front page, August 7th).
I would like to pose a question to Fr Kevin Doran and the Mater board. What is hospital policy if the following situation should arise. A woman presents as an emergency case in the Mater hospital. She has acute abdominal pain, is found to have an ectopic tubal pregnancy and if left untreated the fallopian tube will rupture with resulting peritonitis, shock, and possible death. Would the doctor in charge decide to move her to another hospital as dealing with this emergency would necessitate terminating the pregnancy?
I worked as a midwife in a Catholic hospital in the 1980s and no such dilemma would have occurred. A mother’s life was considered sacrosanct and a maternal death considered a disaster in obstetrics. In fact, no matter what the gestation was, if the mother was in danger she was delivered in order to save her life, even if it meant the foetus would not survive.
I say shame on the Mater hospital and its Catholic ethos for putting women’s lives at risk. – Yours, etc,
MARY OLIVIA
SHEEHAN SRN, SCM,
St Mary’s Place,
Howth, Dublin 13.
Sir, – Conor D Graham (August 8th) writes that hospital protocol regarding abortion should not be based on “fading superstitions.” There are many groups throughout the world which are opposed to abortion on ethical and moral – rather than religious – grounds. These groups include Humanists for Life, Feminists for Life and Atheists for Life.
Of course, babies in the womb have no concept of either religion or ethics: they just want to live. For evidence of this, we need look no further than the testimony of Abby Johnson, a former director of a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Texas. Johnson resigned from her position after witnessing an abortion which was captured on ultrasound, during which a 13-week-old baby squirmed and twisted to avoid the vacuum tube which would end her life.
There is nothing superstitious (or indeed religious) about feeling profound unease and sadness about the reality of abortion – or about hoping and wishing for a better outcome for unborn babies and their mothers. – Yours, etc,
JENNIFER FARRELL,
Ard Righ Road, Dublin 7.
Sir, – I disagree with Mark Coen’s comments in relation to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 (“Abortion law may run counter to the Constitution”, Opinion, August 8th). The Act’s provisions will not cause conflict between the right to religious conscience and the right to have a termination; the conflict is between the right to religious conscience and the right to life. This is a fundamental distinction as no person may legally or ethically use another’s life as a means to that person’s own religious ends.
Health care providers concerned about this conflict should read Pope John Paul II’s message on World Day of Peace in 1991, which, in relation to the limits of freedom of religious conscience states, “When an asserted freedom turns into a licence or becomes an excuse for limiting the rights of others, the State is obliged to protect, also by legal means, the inalienable rights of its citizens against such abuses.” – Yours, etc,
ORLA VEALE MARTIN,
Rue de Mentana,
Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.