Sir, – The group "Doctors for Choice" insists that the term "fatal foetal abnormality" is a medical term which is "clearly used by medical professionals with expertise in this area of medical practice", citing a 2010 report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (July 5th).
While the authors of the letter have an aversion to “a pedantic approach to terminology”, I feel it should be pointed out that the report which they reference does not actually use the term “fatal foetal abnormality”. It is curious that they should cite it in an attempt to show that the term is accepted in the medical community.
Second, it is also curious that the authors appear not to have considered a more recent Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists study published in 2012 which, rather than being a general study on the issue, as the 2010 report was, is a comprehensive examination of the specific issue of whether the use of the terms “fatal” and “lethal” in respect of such conditions is correct.
The 2012 study reviewed 75 separate pieces of research and identified 26 disorders that can be diagnosed in the womb and which are sometimes described as being “fatal” or “lethal” in common media parlance. It concluded that “none of the malformations that are commonly described as being ‘lethal’ are in fact lethal in the strict sense. Prolonged survival has been described in all of the conditions listed”.
It also found that in their short lives, babies born with several of these so-called “fatal” conditions have gone on to “experience awareness of those around them, hear and respond to sound, and to learn and remember”.
The conclusion of the 2012 study is that, apart from cases of misdiagnosis, conditions are often referred to as “fatal” in order to “make it easier for women to come to terms with termination of the pregnancy” and where “practitioners are aware that death is not inevitable, but believe that survivors will not have a life that is worth living”. The report stressed how this use of terminology “can corrupt both the inner logic of the clinician’s decision-making process and the counselling of families facing difficult decisions”.
This research was not produced by or on behalf of “anti-choice commentators”, as the authors of the letter dismissively refer to those who oppose the introduction of abortion on these grounds.
It was conducted by widely renowned experts and published in the journal of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, a body which “Doctors for Choice” quotes as an authority.
It is a shame, therefore, that this study seems to have been ignored by the group when it came to its own conclusions on the matter. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Doctors for Choice dismisses the term “unborn child” in the abortion debate as “not a medical term”. This is risible. Of course it is not a medical term, since it does not describe a medical condition.
It is a term from the philosophy of the human person, and the fact that this is not obvious to these people shows how far out of their area of competence they are in discussing the ethics of abortion. – Yours, etc,
COLM FITZPATRICK,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – John Halligan accepted office as a Minister of State as part of the Irish governmental system. In so doing he accepted the responsibilities of an officer of the State to comply with the Constitution. Now he says his ideology is so strong that he simply does not care if proposed legislation on the termination of the lives of babies is unconstitutional and that he will vote for it anyway. Such action is irresponsible for a legislator. If his ideology is so strong and opposed to stated Government policy, why does he not resign his office?
He has demonstrated his real values as a legislator, but that illustrates the vulnerability of a Government that is dependent on support from him and comrades like Finian McGrath and Shane Ross. Mr Ross’s support for draft legislation that the Attorney General deems to be unconstitutional, and the chief medical officer deems to be inoperable, shows how unsuited for office he is.
Should we be surprised at the current rating of Independents in the latest opinion poll? Perhaps the electorate is getting wise to the solo-runners that the Independent TDs really are. – Yours, etc,
MATT MORAN,
Waterfall,
Cork.
Sir, – We have heard much debate in the last few days from campaigners who want to see abortion introduced for babies diagnosed with “fatal foetal abnormalities”. Since when did it become acceptable to describe seriously ill babies as “abnormal”? Doctors have no way of knowing how long these babies will live, and it is very worrying to think that some of our public representatives have set themselves a goal of introducing a law that would remove all of their legal protection.
These babies are just as entitled to be loved, cherished and cared for by our laws and medical profession as healthy babies.
Indeed, if anything, their extreme vulnerability should lead us to work harder for them and ensure that Ireland offers excellent perinatal palliative care instead of abortion, which is a sad and irrevocable decision for families at a most difficult time. – Yours, etc,
JUNE TWOMEY,
Kilrush,
Co Clare.
Sir, – It is absolutely appalling that members of the Oireachtas, including Ministers, are wasting scarce parliamentary time in promoting a piece of legislation that they have been clearly advised is unconstitutional.
If they are so confident that they can ignore the Attorney General’s advice, let them personally underwrite the costs of a Supreme Court hearing to test the constitutionality of the Bill. – Yours, etc,
TIM BRACKEN,
Cork.