Sir, – I wrote to you 11 years ago (March 1st, 2002, p15), describing the traumatic situation I found myself in one year earlier, having received a diagnosis that the baby I was carrying had a condition that was incompatible with life.
I am writing again because it appears that now there is an opportunity to alleviate the distress I and many like me have gone through, but it is being ignored.
It was disappointing to note that women who have had terminations following a similar diagnosis to my own were denied the opportunity to contribute to the Oireachtas Health Committee’s public hearings.
The words used – abortion, and even termination of pregnancy – are emotive, and can cause a visceral reaction in many. So let me put it another way. Is there anyone who would deny someone like me an induction of labour at 40 weeks’ gestation? That is full term, so I wouldn’t think so – inductions at this stage are common. So how about 38 or 37 weeks – still okay? Of course – full term is defined as anything from 37 to 42 weeks, and again is a common time-frame for inductions every day in our maternity hospitals. Would an induction at 33 weeks still be okay? (Ten years ago, my son was born at 33 weeks, and he is now almost as tall as me and academically is top of his class. In fact, my twins were born by Caesarian section at 32 weeks, and are fine healthy senior infants now). So it would appear that there should be no ethical problems with any of the above, so how far back could we go? Twenty-four weeks? Twenty-two? Why would these present any more of a problem? Don’t forget we are talking about babies who have conditions that are incompatible with life.
So why do some people object to an induction of labour and delivery at anything other than full term? Who exactly are they saving? The outcome, whatever the gestation, is inevitable.
The diagnosis at any stage is devastating. The very real and deep grief starts immediately, whatever the decision of the mother, and is only compounded by the restrictions and stigma that the various self-proclaimed pro-life groups continue to promote.
Many of us who travelled to terminate an already doomed pregnancy found ourselves pregnant again before the full- term date of those pregnancies. I have often wondered which life these absolutists consider to be more important. – Yours, etc,
GAYE EDWARDS,
Woodstock,
Kilcoole, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (Letters, May 16th) sends out a clear and unambiguous message of support for the life of the unborn child during pregnancy. While this is highly commendable, I find it odd that most statements emanating from church spokesmen on this subject seem to downplay the value of the life of the primary patient, ie the mother, who may present with a life-threatening illness. Is it the church view that a patient must forgo life-saving treatment simply because she is pregnant? – Yours, etc,
NIALL GINTY,
The Demesne
Killester
Dublin 5.
Sir, – Hugh Pierce makes a number of valid points which the Catholic Church has to live with and repent of. But it is strange how he ignores the tremendous good work done over the centuries by the self-same church. Who set up most of the original hospitals in Africa and elsewhere, including Europe?
Who established so many of the schools for the education of the poor, (and the rich) around the world?
Perhaps Hugh Pierce has never heard of Cura which has been supporting women, single or married who have a problem with being pregnant.
Who runs many of the adoption agencies, particularly ones which look after the weakest and disabled?
Certainly it is disgracefully true that the Catholic Church has failed most seriously as detailed by Mr Pierce, but to thereby discount any word with which he disagrees without discussing the actual issue puts him in an equally biased situation. His argument would be much stronger if he also alluded to the abject failure, right now, of various organs of the State. This in no way excuses what the Church has done since it should be a leader and not a follower of the norms of current society.
He might also consider that the Catholic Church is not alone in opposing the legislation as currently proposed and the pro-life position is espoused by members of all religions and none, including atheists. The life of each person, from the unborn to the old, is far too precious to be the subject of polemics. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK DAVEY,
Dublin Road,
Shankill,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – It is my firm belief life begins at the moment of conception. I believe abortion, except in the case of saving the life of the mother, is killing a human.
I understand, however, there are those who also “firmly believe” abortion is a woman’s right. Neither side who hold these beliefs can reach a compromise because by definition there cannot be a middle ground on the issue of abortion.
I have no answer as to who is punished in a court of law for having an abortion or allowing for the abortion to be performed. The mother, the doctor, the nurses, the husband, the landlord who rented the building for the medical procedure, or those who assisted the mother-to-be in making such a choice? I have no answer as to what punishment should be handed out to those who participated or assisted in the abortion. Life in prison with or without the possibility of parole? Twenty-five years or six months? Or community service?
So it is my conclusion, on this most important and personal issue, that the issue has to be resolved between the doctor and the patient. For those who hold my view on the sacredness of life from the moment of conception to natural death it is our obligation to educate those who will listen to our position. This is not an issue to be resolved by elected officials or members of the Bar – it must remain an issue between mother-to-be and her doctor. – Yours, etc,
VINCENT J LAVERY,
Coliemore Road,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
A chara, – In other countries, legalising abortion on mental health grounds was followed by what was effectively abortion on demand in practice. Some politicians have argued that Ireland will be different because we have a Constitution which recognises the right to life of the unborn child. I would suggest this argument is not even remotely realistic.
Yes, our laws are supposed to be consistent with the Constitution. But people make individual choices of how to obey or interpret laws. In making these choices they probably take into account the likely consequences (or lack of them) for themselves and other people, much more than whether their actions are constitutional. This Bill fails to hold doctors accountable for how they interpret and practise it, especially the suicide provisions which inevitably leave room for subjective interpretation.
The Bill includes a very important protection for both mothers and unborn children, by saying that terminating pregnancy is legal if there is no other way to save a mother’s life. However, there is nothing in the Bill to explicitly require that doctors keep a record of why termination is the only option, and what other treatments were considered or tried. It does not require these details to be included in the annual report (which, if it gathered dust on a shelf, would not be the first or the last). The Bill specifically says that no questions about its use can be asked under the Freedom of Information Act.
So if the Bill is passed, and some doctors authorise terminations for women whose risk of suicide could have been managed by other treatments, how would anyone know about it? How would these doctors be held to account? If politicians have no satisfactory answer to this question, then passing this Bill in its present form including suicide is an irresponsible and reckless act. – Is mise,
Dr RUTH FOLEY
St John’s Wood West,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.