SHERIE DE BURGH,
• As tomorrow is polling day, there will be a moratorium on letters about this subject
Sir, - I have been working with women experiencing crisis pregnancy for over 15 years now, the last 10 with the Irish Family Planning Association's pregnancy counselling service. Over these years I have seen several thousand women, mostly Irish. However, I have also worked with English, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian, American and Asian women, and lately increasing numbers of Romanian and African women. Many cultures and many attitudes to abortion; but I have never met the woman for whom it was an easily or lightly taken decision.
Only a percentage of my clients would be the recognised hardship cases: victims of rape or incest, wanted pregnancies which end with a non-viable foetus or extreme deformity, or women who have multiple sclerosis or have undergone recent treatment for cancer.
The majority are "ordinary" women: our sisters, cousins, aunts, neighbours - our wives, girlfriends, daughters. Married, single, separated; with and without children. My youngest client was 13 years old. My eldest was just a couple of months short of 50.
These women are from all walks of life, classes and creeds. Some, in their initial extreme distress and panic, will have tried hearsay methods of "dislodging" the pregnancy. Some will have threatened or attempted suicide at the prospect of the choice between parenting and abortion.
The crisis is the pregnancy, and the pregnancy is a crisis because the woman feels she cannot continue it. No woman ever wants to be in the position of considering terminating a pregnancy.
Why, then, do women have abortions? For all the personal stories, reasons, circumstances, situations, feelings and fears, it is my belief, based on my working experience, that women terminate pregnancies because they feel that they cannot, for whatever their personal reasons, give a quality of life to a born child at the time.
The most enduring and ongoing difficulty for Irish women who have abortions is the enormous and often initially overwhelming sense of secrecy and isolation. This referendum will do nothing to stop women having abortions, but will greatly increase their isolation and loneliness, reduce the numbers who avail of counselling and information before travelling, and, as most Irish women already self-refer to English clinics, deter them from seeking medical check-ups and follow-up services on their return.
In the confusion and bewilderment that surrounds this referendum many people have asked me: "Does this mean that women who have abortions are criminals?" No, I explain, not if they can make it to England.
Abortion may be political and moral, but above all it is personal. It is the real and personal experience of more than 100,000 Irish women in the past 20 years. That probably means someone you know.
The clear message of this shameful referendum is: "Let them go to England." Think of "X" and "C". Think of Deirdre de Barra. Think of real women and defeat this proposal. - Yours, etc.,
SHERIE DE BURGH,
Director of Counselling,
Irish Family
Planning Association,
Pearse Street,
Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - As an advocate of voting Yes, I am "morally empty", one of the "usual scaremongering sources", engaged in the normal "rhetoric of terror", and obsessed with "a mere whimsy of jurisdiction". Or, so says Conor Gearty (Opinion, February 27th). And not only do I face the wrath of Prof Gearty, but Jesus Christ, according to Prof Gearty, is certainly not on my side. Omniscience is a God-like quality, so how does Prof Gearty know?
So much for a reasoned debate - so much for not resorting to ad hominem arguments. I did not recognise myself in this Kafkaesque world, where some pretty odd charges are made, nor did I recognise my friends and colleagues who advocate a Yes vote. I do not think that that is due to our blind hypocrisy, or to any indifference as to how others might see us.
I agree with Prof Gearty that the rationale of human rights is to respect the dignity of the person, and to strive for a policy that best reflects the worth of all. That is precisely what motivates me in seeking a Yes vote. For other rights and aspects of our flourishing, we need to have life. Whether we want to form friendships with others, pursue political goals, express opposition to dictatorial governments, work in the academy or in the fields, go to the theatre, or play in Croke Park or Old Trafford, we need a minimal degree of vitality and health. And that is why no one should be arbitrarily denied the right to life, not just because it is a good in itself, but also because it is the pre-condition for all other aspects of human flourishing. Abortion arbitrarily denies the right to life of the weak and the defenceless, groups normally protected by human rights instruments.
As a lawyer, Prof Gearty is aware of the complexity of human community. He is also aware that there is a bewildering array of traditions in Europe today. For this and other reasons, jurisdictions differ widely in the protection offered to the unborn child. France, Great Britain and Germany all differ. So too does Ireland. We are hardly at fault that since April 1968, when the 1967 Act became operative, abortion has been widely available in Britain. The fact that the Irish people may choose a model which essentially prohibits abortion for the sake of both mothers and children does not mean that we are odd, eccentric, or antediluvian.
States obviously recognise limits to their jurisdiction and so do citizens. That is why picketing ports and so on, as Prof Gearty suggests we should (for the sake of consistency), would be absurd. It is misleading to suggest that hypocrisy is a motivation in this debate. Lawmakers recognise limits to jurisdiction and reasonableness. We are a free country, and people from our jurisdiction may lawfully act abroad in a way that they cannot do at home.
Human rights is a field that needs clarity, precision, relevance, consistency and cogency. Prof Gearty did not offer these qualities in his article. I know that he has them from his work on terrorism and the response of the law. They would be well applied to the area of abortion. - Yours, etc.,
KEVIN GRIFFIN,
St Patrick Street,
Dublin 8.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I would like to add my voice to those of Deirdre de Barra (February 25th) and Gaye Edwards (March 1st).
Like theirs, my child was diagnosed with a condition which would never allow him to survive outside of the womb. I wish that the similarities in our stories ended there - unfortunately they do not. I was, as they were, confronted with a wall of medieval attitudes and practices when all I sought was medical intervention to aid my plight. Like them I was forced to take a path abroad and was induced at 18 weeks.
Our stories are not exceptional: maternity hospitals in Ireland regularly close their doors to women who do not wish to go full term with unviable pregnancies. Why are Irish mothers in these circumstances made to feel like criminals on the run from the law?
My heart goes out to women who are forced through lack of contact, support or resources to go full term against their will, whatever their situation. How many medical refugees have to seek asylum abroad before our human rights are recognised? - Yours etc.
SUSANNAH KELLY,
Terenure,
Dublin 6.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - A group of 10 consultant psychiatrists claim that refusing abortion on the grounds of suicide would undoubtedly endanger the lives of some vulnerable women (February 27th). I dispute this statement on the grounds of all the available medical evidence. This group agrees that there are no psychiatric conditions for which abortion is the only answer and that psychiatric illness is rarely an indication for termination of pregnancy.
I believe the views of psychiatrists in Ireland are best judged by the ethical guidelines of the Medical Council, which reflect the views of the majority of all doctors
in Ireland. These guidelines do not include the threat of suicide as reasonable grounds for terminating a pregnancy, because the prediction of suicide is notoriously inaccurate and likely to be wrong 97 times out of 100.
Abortion was legalised in 1967 in the UK in very limited circumstances, which included the grounds of suicide risk. However, as it is impossible to prove that a pregnant mother is not at risk of suicide, this led to abortion on demand. The UK census of 1991 reported that 163,360 out of 179,522 abortions - 91 per cent - were carried out on the grounds of mental health. Currently one in four pregnancies in the UK ends in abortion.
On average there are 180,000 abortions per year. This group of 10 psychiatrists have not highlighted the fact that the suicide rate of women in Ireland is 4 per 100,000, compared with the EU average of 6 per 100,000.
Having worked in obstetrics in England when abortion was legal up to 28 weeks - officially on grounds of suicide risk, but in practice on social grounds - I strongly support the statement issued by Profs Casey and Clare and advocate a Yes vote. Should we risk the UK rates of abortion when the risk of suicide in pregnancy is so small? - Yours, etc.,
Dr ELEANOR CORCORAN,
Consultant Psychiatrist,
Letterkenny General Hospital,
Co Donegal.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Like creatures of J.R.R. Tolkien, we are busily creating a fantasy land in which all is what we think it should delightfully be, not as it is. We already have a liberal abortion law, freely availed of by thousands of our citizens. It is called the Abortion Act 1967. Eighty years after we obtained our political independence we are, in practice, as subject to a law of the United Kingdom as surely as if the writ of Westminster still ran in this country.
The point is, of course, that we had no part in framing the Act or its subsequent amendments. We have had the worst of both worlds, with no control over either. Hypocrisy? I think so. - Yours, etc.,
IAN D'ALTON,
Rathasker Heights,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - While the proposed 25th amendment would neither be our preferred method of dealing with the issue of abortion nor faultless in its wording or implications, as individual ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, we believe a Yes vote is the better option, because it would provide additional protection for the unborn. - Yours, etc.,
Rev FRANK SELLAR,
Adelaide Road, Dublin;
Rev GARY MILLAR,
Howth and Malahide;
Rev JOHN WOODSIDE,
Kilkenny.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Your front-page report of March 2nd demonstrates that at least 66 per cent of those polled favour abortion in certain or in all circumstances, while those who oppose it in all circumstances stand at a mere 28 per cent.
I count myself with the majority and am very annoyed that the Government is spending money that is desperately needed in the underfunded health service on a referendum which, as your paper's survey also shows, most people don't understand and don't care about either.
How much longer will politicians pander to conservative elements merely because they are vociferous? When can we move on to emulate our partner European countries, and stop the cruel process of exporting pregnant women who want abortions?
When will the voice of ordinary women be heard in Ireland? - Yours, etc.,
SARAH QUILTY,
Redcastle,
Co Donegal.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - After watching the antics of Michael Noonan's party over the past few weeks, it grieves me as a traditional Fine Gael supporter to admit that I can no longer vote for my local Fine Gael TD.
As a young woman, I believe that abortion damages women, subjecting them to a traumatic event which may have long-lasting consequences. I believe the psychiatrists who have stated that abortion can increase the likelihood of suicide. I believe the obstetricians who have said abortion is never necessary to save the life of a woman. I believe the unborn have a right to life, regardless of the circumstances of their conception.
Finally, I believe that there is a better way to help women who have unplanned pregnancies and that Bertie Ahern, not Michael Noonan, is committed to finding that better way. - Yours, etc.,
CHRISTINE SHECKLETON,
Whitethorn Crescent,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - There is no such thing as a limited abortion regime as is shown in other countries, particularly Britain. So-called limited abortion was introduced there in 1967 with the end result of abortion on demand. I worked until recently in King's College London in high-risk obstetric care and sadly had first-hand knowledge of the slippery slope of abortion on medical grounds. We must do everything in our power, for the sake of all humanity, to protect life from conception to natural death. I will be voting No to the Government's proposals. - Yours, etc.,
MARY E. KELLY-
FITZGIBBON,
RGN, RM, BSc (Hons), MSc,
Caherslee,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - A constitution is a country's credo. It should express the virtual unanimity of the people. Nothing in it should be the subject of widespread acrimony. In spite of this, the Government insists on putting before us a proposal that expresses the narrow views of extreme right-wing Catholics.
For 20 years, the latter, by half-truths and dreary sanctimonious cant, have sown endless confusion and cost the taxpayer millions. Worse, instead of reducing abortions, they have probably caused hundreds more of them, though outside this jurisdiction.
They seem to be concerned about the holiness of Irish soil, not the bodies and souls of Irish women. Without an English solution to an Irish problem, our hospitals, like those in Catholic countries in Latin America, would not be able to cope with the numbers of botched abortions.
As if to emphasise its loyalty to the Roman Church by virtually equating every abortion with murder, the Government threatens to jail for up to 12 years women who have an abortion in their own land. This includes girls who are suicidal after rape or incest and mothers of big families.
Is a comparison with the Taliban so wide of the mark? - Yours, etc.,
PETER DE ROSA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.