Sir, – James M Sheehan, director Blackrock and Galway Clinics, commends the Catholic Church for upholding “for over 2,000 years” the Hippocratic Oath, ie “utmost respect for every human life from fertilisation to natural death”.
This is simply not true. Both the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition, inaugurated for very questionable motives, left behind a legacy of intolerance and anti-Semitism and a death toll, estimated by the most conservative historians, in the hundreds of thousands. In more recent times we have seen proof of church involvement in, and cover-up of, child abuse (hardly the ideal of "utmost respect") and even today, in the revised Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), we find support for the death penalty. In short, Mr Sheehan's contention is absurd. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH WOOD,
Shamrock Avenue,
Douglas, Cork.
Sir, – The article by Dr Michael Reilly (Opinion, June 21st), made chilling reading, as this country is on the cusp of introducing abortion on the grounds of suicide: “Despite training and experience, psychiatrists can’t always detect feigned suicidality . . . While a majority of those at risk of completing suicide will be identified, a large number who will not complete suicide are also so identified (false positives) . . . Even assessment by two psychiatrists does not necessarily provide the protection against unnecessary abortion it appears to provide as all psychiatrists use the same method of identifying suicide risk”.
Perhaps this explains why safeguards, checks and balances could not hold back the tide of abortion in countries where suicide is a determining factor. Do the Irish people really want to go down this road? – Yours, etc,
EILEEN GAUGHAN,
Strandhill,
Sligo.
Sir, – I am at a loss to understand the point of the article “AG should have role in vindicating rights of unborn” (Eamonn Barnes, Opinion, June 22nd).
Mr Barnes’s contention is that under the Constitution the foetus should have equal representation with the mother in any discussions relating to termination on the basis of suicidal ideation on the part of the mother. If this suggestion were to be adopted by our legislature it would be interesting to see how the foetus advocate could consult with his/her client.
I was under the impression that the pro-life lobby was standing up for the foetus. I was also under the impression that the underlying motive of the medical profession was to save the life of the mother and the foetus if that is at all possible. So under those circumstances it would be the responsibility of the mother to prove her suicidal ideation was adequate and sufficient reason to allow the medical representatives to permit a termination. Given the conservative nature of the Irish medical profession the woman would not have an easy task.
So the addition of some lawyer from the AG’s office would not have any function but to slow things down even more than envisaged in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. It would only be a sop to the Constitution as well as the legal profession who seem to show up when somebody wants to slow things down to a dead stop.
If a woman were suicidal as a result of her pregnancy she would likely be even more so after she went through the procedure laid down in this Bill. If Mr Barnes’s suggestion is put into practice the woman would quite likely have committed suicide before the first discussion had finished.
Somehow, I think the abortion clinics in England are not going to find their business reduced if this Bill is passed into law. And, sad to say, that trend is not going to be cease any time in the future. – Yours, etc,
LIAM COOKE,
Greencastle Avenue,
Coolock, Dublin 17.
Sir, – The articles by Michael Reilly (Opinion, June 21st) and Eamonn Barnes (Opinion, June 22nd) are the clearest exposition I have seen as to why the section of the Bill currently before the Dáil, dealing with suicidal ideation, is very much at odds with the provisions of the Constitution to have equal regard to the life of the mother and the unborn.
Michael Reilly is surely correct when he questions whether, if we take the constitutional position seriously we can regard the foetus – perhaps even an almost full-term one – “as a stressor capable of being eliminated when we have evidence-based alternative treatments available to treat the mother”. His contention that, in an area of uncertainty doctors will tend to favour the life of the mother over the unborn, if for no other reason than that successful litigation is unlikely to arise from any harm to the latter, seems to me to be a definite possibility. If the Government is not prepared to accept this point, then at the very least the Bill should be amended to allow, as former DPP, Eamonn Barnes says, the attorney general to represent the interests of the unborn through seeking a judicial review of any decision to terminate. Otherwise, Mr Barnes maintains, the foetus has no chance of having its rights vindicated and this is at odds with the equal right to life of the unborn. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL McCANN,
Carragh Hill,
Galway.
A chara, – As a practising criminal law barrister, I was not aware of a single prosecution of doctors, nurses or midwives for allowing the death of an unborn child while performing a procedure to save the mother’s life. Twenty years after the Supreme Court judgment in the X case, I am still unaware of any prosecution, whether successful or not. Even the report into the death of Savita Halappanavar does not suggest that medical staff be prosecuted. So why the rush to “clarify” the law now? – Is mise,
KIERON WOOD BL
Grange Wood,
Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, – I would like to point out the irrelevance of the mantra that “abortion is not a treatment for suicide”, which is being trotted out at every available opportunity by the so-called “pro life” pressure group.
Basic logic applies here. If a woman who is experiencing mental health difficulties experiences a crisis pregnancy, one situation will compound the other, leaving some women in a situation of not being able to cope. Accordingly, it is up to the woman herself in consultation with her doctors to determine whether it is in the woman’s interest to continue with the pregnancy.
When working as a psychotherapist with women in this predicament, I respect the woman’s right to make her own moral judgment about the future of her pregnancy. By denying women this right we are depriving them of the opportunity to exercise their own moral judgement.
The Catholic Church is again attempting to control this nation’s moral judgment. Ireland did not fall apart when contraception and divorce were introduced against the Catholic Church’s wishes and neither will it after the introduction of this Bill.
The hysterical reaction to this Bill is an attempt by the Catholic Church to be the moral arbiter for the entire population. Given its recent history in relation to child sexual abuse, it is in no position to be the moral arbiter on anything. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH FLANAGAN,
M Phil (Psychoanalysis)
TCD, BSc (Psychotherapy)
MIACP,
Louisa Valley,
Leixlip, Co Kildare.
A chara, – Article 40 of the Constitution refers to the “equal right to life” of the mother and the unborn. How then without a referendum to change Article 40 can a law be valid permitting in defined circumstances, unborn life to be taken to preserve the the life of the mother, if it does not at the same time permit in defined circumstances the life of the mother to be taken to preserve that of the unborn?
I do not advocate that any new law should do so, only that this inequality be resolved before passing into law. Otherwise the first proposed abortion may result in the death of both while awaiting the outcome of a Supreme Court challenge. – Is mise,
JOHN CRONIN,
College Crescent,
Terenure,
Dublin 6W.