Sir, – The search for an appropriate forum to inquire into the unfortunate death of Savita Halappanavar is ignoring that we have already a lawful and constitutional system for investigating sudden and unexpected deaths of this nature, the coroner and his court. Indeed it has been part of our legal system for upwards of 800 years – older even than all our courts.The coroner for the district in which the death occurs has a right and a duty to make such inquiry and it is an offence to obstruct him in his endeavours.
He is also entitled to summon any person who he thinks would assist him and his jury in their deliberations and also to bring with them any documents which he considers would be relevant. Failure to comply is punishable by reference to the High Court.
The proceedings of a coroner’s inquest are inquisitorial, ie fact-seeking, and therefore non-adversarial, unlike tribunals. The establishment of ad hoc tribunals or some kind of à la carte investigation, as is being suggested by Mr Halappanavar’s solicitor, would be combative and long drawn-out and would lead to the enrichment of numerous lawyers, mostly at the taxpayers’ expense. Such results are undesirable.
Therefore let us proceed to a speedy inquest to establish the facts and proceed to such inquiries if any appear necessary thereafter. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Julie F Kay’s article (Opinion, November 22nd) contains one misleading statement. She writes, “Despite the lack of prosecutions, the severity of Irish law and the unrelenting stigma of abortion have coloured all medical discussions around care for women experiencing problem pregnancies.” There have indeed been prosecutions. Between 1926 and 1974 there were 58 Garda investigations and/or trials under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Trials were covered by The Irish Times in considerable detail. The majority of prosecutions and trials took place between 1942 and 1946 when travel to England was restricted and pregnant women could not get out of Ireland. In the preceding period of 1938 to 1946 there is little evidence of any prosecutions. This can be attributed to the famous Bourne case where Dr Aleck Bourne was unsuccessfully prosecuted in England for carrying out an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who had been gang raped by soldiers. The judgment of 1938 had consequences for the interpretation of the 1861 Act and ultimately for women in Ireland.
Commenting at the end of yet another trial in Dublin of a backstreet abortionist from Merrion Square in 1944, the late Judge Cahir Davitt remarked: “It is a melancholy reflection that for the past few weeks I have been trying these cases and nothing else.” – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Surely one as wise as Vincent Browne can see the difference between the sense of responsibility and care of a pregnant woman towards the child in her womb and the duty that he and other “middle class people”, not to mention all of us citizens of the (developed) world, have or should have towards the poor (Opinion, November 21st).
Also, he says that “It may be the case that in a pro-choice environment some pregnant women would opt for abortions for reasons that would appear to many as insubstantial” (my italics). There’s no “may be” about it. It’s a sad consequence of pro-choice regimes that abortion is often used as the “solution” to a problematic, or simply unwanted, pregnancy.
The sad and tragic deaths of Savita Halappanavar and her unborn child have given rise to an enormous amount of comment, spoken and written, on the question of legislation on the X case and on abortion law in Ireland. I, with perhaps a less vocal minority, am happy to wait for the outcome of an inquiry into Savita Halappanavar’s treatment in UCHG. The sooner the better. – Is mise,
Sir, – Numerous commentators have stated that Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to give birth based on our maternal mortality statistics. In fact our maternal mortality statistics are calculated differently to those of many other countries, including the UK. We use the crudest definition, thereby making our figures appear artificially low when directly compared with our neighbours. In 2013, Ireland’s maternal mortality rates will be calculated using a more inclusive metric. It is anticipated that overnight our “safe” rate of one per 100,000 will increase by a factor of 10 to a less safe 10 per 100,000. I wonder if our politicians will continue to quote our services as being the best in the world then? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Patsy McGarry makes several serious errors in his piece on the “evolving Church teaching” on abortion (Opinion, November 20th). Perhaps his worst mistake is to describe the new human life after conception as “that collection of chemical elements”. This is one of the most inaccurate, reductive and demeaning descriptions of the unborn human being that I have ever read. It has no basis in fact and displays a woeful ignorance of modern medical and scientific knowledge about the complex, unique, unified and entirely wonderful reality of each and every newly conceived human being.
He also confuses theological theories with church teaching. In fact, he directly contradicts himself in the article, when he says that a theory of Aquinas’s on ensoulment is church “dogma” in one paragraph, only to say that it is still “an open question” in the next. He finishes with the idea that the unborn human being may correctly be viewed by analogy to an unjust aggressor in a war or self-defence situation! So has it come to this: we are to understand the unborn as merely a “collection of chemical elements” and as an enemy that we have ‘a duty’ to protect ourselves from? Surely The Irish Times has hit an all-time low with this piece. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It’s not a question of morality or religion. It is not a question of the rights of the mother being weighed against the rights of the child. It is not a question that needed what happened in Galway to jolt us awake.
It is a question of accepting reality: “Ireland has abortion rates that are typical of Western Europe (albeit that the vast majority of Irish terminations are performed in Britain).” (Fintan O’Toole, Weekend Review, November 17th).
Whether we move on with neutrality, compassion or disdain, hypocrisy has to be left out of the equation, and we have to embrace the problem at home. – Yours, etc,
A chara,- As an Irishman living away from Ireland and fiercely proud of all that our island has achieved, North and South, in the face of various adversities in the last few years, I would echo the dismay expressed by Ann Marie Hourihane (Opinion November 19th).
I have many friends here who now find my accounts of a new, modern Ireland ringing very hollow in the light of the appalling death of Savita Halappanavar. And we used to call India part of the Third World. Shame on us all. – Is mise,
Sir, – One of the many unclear or misleading elements in the abortion debate is the terminology used. Pro-life and pro-choice as descriptors for opposing positions and beliefs inaccurately represents what is at issue.
The term pro-life infers an opposing position must be anti-life. As a pro-choice parent of two children I am clearly not anti-life. Neither, I’m sure are all the other supporters of a woman’s right to choose – whether they are parents or not. I would suggest pro-choice and anti-choice as more accurate and honest terms to describe the positions held in this difficult debate, as Ireland struggles to address it once again. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Arising from the sad death of Savita Halappanavar, Vincent Browne (Opinion, November 21st) argues the case for “a woman’s right to choose”, ie, abortion on demand.
However, he then concludes “a new amendment is required permitting termination of pregnancy if a woman so demands and if medical – including psychiatric – reasons support her demand.” It seems that it’s not just our politicians who tend to cop-out. – Yours, etc,