Constructive discussion needed

Sir — I must respond to Eilis O’Hanlon’s article on abortion (Sunday Independent, October 22). Her suggestion that Amnesty International’s position on abortion is tainted by “ingrained biases and prejudices” is completely unfounded. Amnesty draws its mandate from international human rights law.

We choose our campaigns based on the gravity of the human rights violations at the heart of any particular issue. Women and girls have a human right to access abortion services. This right is firmly grounded in decades of jurisprudence on women’s sexual and reproductive rights from the international human rights system Ireland helped create.

We are not “heavily one-sided” in the position we take. We are simply on the side of women’s human rights.

Supporting women’s human rights is not controversial or divisive. Last week, we published a RED C poll which found that 60pc of people in Ireland support women’s access to abortion on request.

While some media commentators try to position this as a battle between two ‘‘extreme’’ positions, it is not. What we see is a shared concern across all of Irish society at the suffering Ireland’s archaic abortion laws cause. Those who actively oppose reform are a tiny minority, but are often given disproportionate space because of how loudly they shout.

International public health evidence and medical best practice is that access to abortion is a necessary part of any sexual and reproductive health service. So it should be no surprise to Ms O’Hanlon that when the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment calls international expert witnesses like the World Health Organisation, or national experts like Professor Peter Boylan, this is what they will hear.

The committee has indeed heard compelling evidence from medical, legal and human rights experts overwhelmingly in favour of reform.

Professor Boylan is a former master of the National Maternity Hospital and current chair of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. One would think his expert testimony would be treated with seriousness and respect.

However, Ms O’Hanlon selectively cites the HSE inquiry into Savita Halappanavar’s tragic death in an effort to criticise his testimony. His expert view was that Savita “died as a consequence of the Eighth Amendment”.

The HSE inquiry found that one of the reasons for her death was the lack of management options available to her doctors — ie, a termination when medically indicated — and that the Eighth Amendment was a contributory factor. Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, chair of that HSE inquiry, appeared alongside Prof Boylan at the committee and confirmed the Eighth Amendment’s role in her preventable death.

Amnesty’s 2015 research report, She is not a Criminal, made this same finding, and concluded: “If Ireland allowed abortion on health grounds in compliance with its human rights obligations, Savita Halappanavar could be alive today.”

People in Ireland support women’s human right to have access to safe and legal abortion services. It’s time for a constructive media discussion which reflects that fact, and is based on evidence, truth and women’s health and rights. Colm O’Gorman, Executive Director, Amnesty International Ireland