Sir, - I would like to commend Deirdre de Barra for her frank and forthright disclosure through your Letters column (February 25th). Last year, I was faced with similar decisions to hers, and am ashamed to confess that I was not prepared to be the first to raise the profile of the angst and devastation that accompanied such circumstances, the nature of which are intensely personal.
My much wanted and loved son was diagnosed with a fatal condition at a routine scan, and his birth was induced at 22 weeks' gestation in a hospital outside this jurisdiction. My own carers were not prepared to consider this unless I was at least 38 weeks pregnant - their hands are tied by the current legal environment. Personally, I fail to see the distinction between inducing at 22 weeks, at 32 weeks, or at 42 weeks, where there is no question of viability.
I would have expected the support of the masters in the maternity hospitals, and indeed was heartened to read in your Breaking News website that they believed a pregnant woman carrying a foetus which could not survive life outside the womb should be entitled to terminate her pregnancy in Ireland.
However, they go on to urge a Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum. How can they justify this contradiction? There is currently no provision for termination of pregnancies such as these. Nor would there be in the event of the referendum being carried. However, if the referendum is defeated, it might be possible to legislate for these difficult circumstances. If it is passed, such legislation can never be passed (without a further emotive and divisive referendum). I am puzzled by the apparent contradiction in the joint statement of the masters of the maternity hospitals, and can only attribute it to their concern about doctors' interests: they want the protection specified in section 1.(2) of the Act - a protection which they currently enjoy anyway.
Let there be no doubt in any of your readers' minds: the choice faced by Deirdre de Barra, by myself and by hundreds of Irish women is the most heartbreaking any parent could even imagine. Whichever route is taken is littered with emotional pain and upheaval of an intensity that is impossible to describe. The reality that faced my husband and me when seeking simple information on what options were open to us outside this jurisdiction was that the right to information that we endorsed in the referendum of 1992 was shackled by accompanying legislation. It transpires that counselling must be non-directive (but may involve anti-abortion advocacy). One agency was prepared to give us the name (but not the phone number) of a UK hospital.
We rang that hospital, but they were unable to see us because of the stage I was at in my pregnancy, and so gave us the number of another, but we were met with a similar response and another phone number. And so on. Meanwhile, we were getting further and further from what was known to us.
Our own carers have no relationships with the foreign service providers. There is no facility for consultation on medical records between the jurisdictions. How can Irish women's health and safety be assured in such circumstances? As it happens, we were treated with dignity, care and compassion when we left this country, as was our son. All we wanted was the same from our own carers, and it will never happen if this referendum is passed.
I understand that the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Attorney General have advised that they would not wish to comment on an individual case, but Deirdre de Barra was using her own circumstances to illustrate decisions which face hundreds of Irish women each and every year. This topic is not new to our politicians - the masters of the various maternity hospitals referred to it in their submissions to the All Party Oireachtas Committee, and all agreed that in these circumstances, provisions should be made for women who chose not to continue their pregnancies. For the Taoiseach's office to respond that "that general issue is not comprehended by this proposal" is farcical. Is it not the Taoiseach who is proposing this amendment? - Yours, etc.,
GAYE EDWARDS,
Verschoyle Glen,
Saggart Abbey,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Dr Peter Kirwan writes (February 22nd): "If only one woman's life is ended either actively or passively because she cannot cope with or cannot reveal her unwanted pregnancy, it is one maternal death too many". On the face of it one could not argue with this and he is not unique in making this point during this debate.
However, it is implicit in his letter that this is an adequate reason for retaining the threat of suicide as a justification for performing an abortion. Clearly, as pointed out by Profs Anthony Clare and Patricia Casey, not all such threats would be carried through to the mother's death. With proper care it would be exceptional. But under the present law such a threat could well carry through to her baby's death.
In other words, an uncertain death to the mother would translate to a certain death to the baby. How many dead babies would be acceptable as a fair exchange for saving one mother's life - five, 10, 20 or more? - Yours, etc.,
Prof SEAN BLAKE,
Wellington Road,
Dublin 4.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The current abortion debate, which seems once again to revolve around a woman's reproductive organs (a rather peculiar obsession on the part of the pro-life lobby), ignores the reality of many women's lives and the circumstances under which the decision to have an abortion is made.
Take, for instance, the situation of a woman who, 16 weeks into her pregnancy, is told that her child will suffer a life-long disability for which there is no cure. If she has any further children there is a high probability that these children will suffer the same disability. Far from supporting her in such horrific circumstances, the Irish State will refuse as far as is practicable to support both the mother and the child in coping with the disability. There will be little or no respite for the mother, she will rarely get a break from her child, and there will be no additional resources, either financial or material, to help her cope.
There will be little or no education provided for the child. Any such education may have to be fought for through the courts.
She is further told that her mariage will break down under the strain of coping with the child's disability and she will become a single parent. There will be no resources to fund the specialist childcare required to enable the woman to remain in work. Therefore she will have to give up her job and claim social welfare payments. She will henceforth effectively live her life in poverty. If she claims Carers' Allowance, she will not be allowed to partake of meaningful employment. Any form of work that would take her mind off her poverty-stricken, isolated and lonely life will not be permitted. However, she will be allowed to do 10 hours of home help work per week for the health board, meaning that when she gets a break from caring she can go out and care for somebody else for the princely sum of €6.90 an hour.
The only part of this story that is not true of my own case is that my child's disability was not detected in pregnancy, and it was only after the birth that the disability emerged. I hope I would have had the courage to proceed with the pregnancy anyway, but if I'd known then what I know now I cannot say for sure. Everything else in this story is absolutely true.
I do not want this letter to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that disability should be grounds for an abortion. My point is that all these so-called pro-life people only seem concerned with such life up to the point of birth. How many of them attended the meeting chaired by Fintan O'Toole recently to protest at the Disability Bill? Where were these same people when the child poverty of St Theresa Gardens was revealed last year in a documentary on RTE? Do these children have a right to life? Or is it only the right to be born andto hell with them as soon as they leave the womb?
Women have abortions for many many reasons, and whatever the outcome of the current referendum will continue to do so. Given my personal situation now, that could well be the option I would choose for myself and my family.
As long as this country abdicates responsibility for children who are marginalised and disadvantaged for whatever reason, then nobody has any right to demand that a woman proceed with pregnancy. The issues of suicide, morning-after pill, moment of implantation (ugh), etc., are irrelevant. Those who call themselves pro-life (in fact they are pro-birth, not pro-life) need to explain the breathtaking hypocrisy of their position. They have no right to dictate to me or anybody else what to do, when they are not prepared to support life from cradle to grave. - Yours, etc.,
A. CLARKE,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - My colleague Dr Phil Boyle of Doctors for Life is wrong. Abortion does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.
This scaremongering tactic has been positively refuted in the international medical literature. It is a false claim and should be refuted here.
Dr Boyle's other claims by the way, are debatable contentions. I would suggest, instead, that there are no good medical reasons for voting Yes to the amendment. - Yours, etc.
NICK BREEN,
GP, MB, MRCGP
Killincarrig,
Co Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - I refer to your front-page report of February 26th "FG plans for limited abortion in suicide risk cases".
This proposal by Fine Gael fails to take into account the way such a plan would be used by enthusiastic pro-abortion doctors, who may be a minority of my profession, but a few doctors eager to perform abortions would be all that is needed to start the journey to the British abortion-on-demand system. I began working as a junior doctor in obstetrics and gynaecology in Britain just after the "limited" Abortion Act became law there and know how it was interpreted by such doctors.
Imagine the scene. A doctor is being questioned about an abortion he or she has done. "I interviewed her and came to the conclusion that she was a genuine suicide risk. I discussed the case with a psychiatric colleague and we agreed that a termination was the safest thing to do. It may be, in retrospect, that I over-reacted, but it was done in good faith." What is the Director of Public Prosecutions to do? He or she might bring a test case, but it would inevitably be lost and the gynaecologist would be "vindicated" and eventually the DPP would abandon further attempts.
I also refer to letters from correspondents worried about the designated hospital provision. This is only there to prevent private clinics doing outpatient abortions. In practice a doctor with the necessary skills faced with a rare situation needing immediate action in a non-designated hospital or even in a patient's home should and could go ahead if the situation requires it and this would be accepted.
I felt great sympathy for Deirdre de Barra (January 25th) who argues that no one should be forced to continue a pregnancy with a baby with a lethal abnormality. When interviewed by the Oireachtas committee in 2000, I urged that the word "abortion" should be used to mean the ending of a pregnancy where the baby could have lived with routine management of a normal or complicated pregnancy. In practice I and most of my fellow gynaecologists will have ended the life of an abnormal foetus when obstructed labour is developing, e.g. due to a not uncommon gross hydrocephaly and spina bifida. This is an indirect result of the need to drain the vast amount of cerebro-spinal fluid from the baby's head to allow a normal birth.
It is only a short step from that to ending the pregnancy (provided that it can be done safely) where the baby cannot live and I do not think that in practice this would cause problems for the doctor in such tragic cases as Ms de Barra's. A working definition of abortion is needed as I suggested above and it would match the common use of the word, no matter what the dictionary says.
Finally, I urge a Yes vote in spite of some imperfect wording of the referendum. - Yours, etc.,
ALISTAIR McFARLANE,
Cambellstown,
Co Donegal.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - I am a relative newcomer to this country and, despite its similarities to my native Australia and the insights provided by Irish ancestry and a Catholic education, there is much I don't understand.
Why is there such a fundamental mistrust of women in this country? Why is it assumed that if women are given the freedom to act in relation to their own bodies, health and procreation, they would abuse this freedom and flock to abortion clinics demanding convenience terminations? This not only flies in the face of actual research but also of the lived experience of the majority of people here, who witnessed their own mothers and other women making endless difficult moral decisions in the daily course of their lives.
Given the record of abuse of real, actual children in Catholic-run institutions in this country, why does the Catholic Church still have so much influence in determining public policy over the lives of women and children?
Why is the potential life (and potential rights) of an embryo given precedence over the real life and rights of actual women - and in many cases over the rights of their partners and children? In a similar way, why is it that the life of an embryo appears to create much more depth of feeling and emotion than the blighted lives of children with disabilities who languish for want of proper resources and education?
Finally, how is it that this country, which fought so long for its independence, is prepared to depend on its former coloniser to provide an essential service to women in need? - Is mise,
DEIRDRE WICKS,
Canrawer,
Co Galway.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - On March 6th all who believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception should put aside political allegiances and sectional interests. Some are saying there is confusion on whether a Yes or No vote will best serve unborn children. The bishops of Ireland have made it crystal clear that faithful Catholics should vote Yes.
Does any pro-life Catholic worthy of the name seriously believe the bishops would give this advice without the most profound and prayerful consideration of every aspect of this matter?
They are not just expressing an opinion. They, as successors of the apostles, are responsible before God for safeguarding and teaching the Truth in matters of faith and morality. It is to the bishops that faithful Catholics must listen. - Yours, etc.
Fr PATRICK McCAFFERTY,
Belfast 14.