We are getting incomplete information in abortion debate
■ Dr Peter Boylan’s contribution to the Oireachtas committee on the Eighth Amendment appears to have been one of the more aggressive and arrogant versions of the recent ‘Trust me, I’m a doctor’ efforts.
Given the repeated failures by consultants over the years, hepatitis C and symphysiotomy to mention just two, and the fact that termination would have been fully legal in the Savita Halappanavar case, he might have explained why the hospital involved was not prepared to properly deal with this known, if not very common, problem.
Neither his contribution nor that of Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran addressed the issue of what rights the unborn child might be allowed, if any.
Dr Rhona Mahony is someone who was very good to us at some difficult times and whom we hold in very fond regard. The contribution on this debate by her and Professor Fergal Malone was more measured and presented genuine dilemmas faced by doctors. Unfortunately, it was also very incomplete and left a lot of issues open.
Dr Mahony and Prof Malone blend two separate issues: genuine danger to the mother and serious foetal abnormalities. A serious foetal abnormality, as we know from personal experience, is emotionally devastating but represents no immediate hazard to the mother. However, how do you define those that are so severe that they can justify killing the child? One example is Down Syndrome: where the child is capable of a joyful and fulfilled life, but where many medical systems urge termination and Iceland, among others, has proposed, as a “progressive” measure, to detect and permit the termination of every DS child before it is born.
We don’t doubt the difficulty of the question when a mother’s life is genuinely at risk, but Dr Mahony and Prof Malone propose no actual solution other than “a change”.
Every human law is imperfect and open to reform, but we need a concrete proposal to discuss. We need to clearly understand in detail how proposed changes can improve things and, given the dishonesty and disrespect for the law shown by the abortion industry lobby here and in other countries, how they can protect against abuse of the proposed changes.
In a country with people of many faiths and none, we are obliged to discuss these matters rationally and legislate based on scientific fact and respect for the dignity of all human life.
Attempts, whether by extremist believers or State-financed human rights lawyers, to evade this obligation lead us directly to the likes of Trump-ian climate change denial and Brexiteer fantasies and ultimately to irrational, harmful laws.
Anne and Liam Mulligan Letterkenny, Co Donegal