PO Box 6862,
Sir, - On behalf of Doctors for Choice, I wish to respond to the recent statement from Professors Clare and Casey in support of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. They state that abortion is not a psychiatric issue. As doctors we disagree.
Professors Clare and Casey are out of touch with the reality of medical practice in Ireland. Women who seek abortions are seen almost exclusively by general practitioners, not psychiatrists. GPs frequently see women who have significant psychological distress when faced with a crisis pregnancy. In rare cases this will include a risk of suicide (as in both the X and C cases) if there were to be an enforced continuation of pregnancy.
Women currently solve their difficulties by exercising their right to travel to the UK. This requires health and financial resources. By supporting this amendment Profs Clare and Casey agree with the prohibition of a termination of pregnancy for a woman who is suicidal and who is unable to travel for medical or financial reasons.
Secondly, this amendment, if passed, will for the first time allow the prosecution and imprisonment for 12 years of any woman who procures an abortion in this country, even if self-administered. Do Profs Clare and Casey support the imprisonment of vulnerable and distressed women? This is unprecedented in current medical practice and is itself a reason to vote No to the amendment.
No referendum will change the reality of the 19 women who travel to the UK every day for abortions. These women have health care needs that GPs (not psychiatrists) face every day. These patients and doctors need support, not regressive and dangerous legislation.
We need to defeat the referendum and then start to address these needs with a high-quality,accessible, GP-led service. - Yours, etc.,
Dr MARY FAVIER,
General Practitioner,
Dr PEADAR O' GRADY,
Child Psychiatrist,
Doctors for Choice,
PO Box 6862,
DUBLIN 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Does the wording of the proposed Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill redefine pregnancy, as was claimed by a spokesperson for the newly launched pro-life group, Ireland for Life, which is calling for a No vote in the abortion referendum? I don't believe it does; the proposed Bill doesn't define the term "unborn" and therefore doesn't attempt to define when precisely human life begins.
What the Bill does define is what constitutes an indictable criminal offence of abortion. It makes the deliberate destruction of an unborn in a proven, established pregnancy (post-implantation, as this is when it can be proved that a pregnancy has taken place) subject to prosecution in our courts.
It makes those convicted of facilitating or assisting in procuring an abortion so defined liable for imprisonment for up to 12 years. In addition, the Bill protects current medical practice in our maternity hospitals and indemnifies doctors from prosecution where intervention is necessary to save a mother's life, even if such intervention results in the unintentional loss of the unborn.
In the 10 years since the 1992 X Case the broad pro-life movement has campaigned unceasingly for a referendum to allow the people to overturn the Supreme Court's judgment that the threat of suicide constituted a "real and substantial risk" to the life of the mother. This was never the intention of the Irish people who voted by a majority of 2-1 in favour of the 1983 amendment. A Yes vote to the referendum on March 6th would copperfasten that particular objective.
No one should doubt that pro-life supporters calling for a Yes vote remain solidly committed to defending the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception. I would be very surprised if the majority of them weren't acutely aware of the threat posed to embryonic life pre-implantation by the availability of abortifacient pills and devices.
They are also aware of the possibility of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction recommending to a future government that it should legislate to allow the destruction of "surplus" embryos developed by IVF in the course of infertility treatment or to allow human embryos developed in test-tubes to be abused in immoral and unethical experimentation and research. But they see countering this threat as a fight for another day.
On March 6th voters will be given the opportunity of ensuring that no future Irish government can introduce legislation for abortion on the grounds of the Supreme Court's ruling in the X Case. It is an opportunity that may not come our way again: the two major Opposition parties in the Dáil have clearly indicated their intention, if ever in government, to introduce legislation for abortion where the mother threatens to take her own life. In my opinion it would be foolish and reckless for all who profess to be anti-abortion not to turn out and vote Yes.- Yours, etc.,
DELMA BOURKE,
Lee Road,
Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir - Kathryn Mulready (February 15th) asks pertinent questions about the contradictions between the Government's pro-life posturings and the all too frequent lack of respect in Ireland for life outside the womb. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many people, the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. - Yours, etc.,
HUGH DUNNE,
Phoenix, Arizona,
USA.