Savita’s death and link to legislation

Sir — Your article on Dr Peter Boylan (Sunday Independent, June 4) gave the impression that Savita Halappanavar might not have died but for Article 43.3.3 of our Constitution. However, three inquiries (by the HSE, HIQA, and the coroner inquest) all said that our laws were not a factor in that tragic case. They were, however, very clear that the death was due to either incompetence and/or non-communication.

The HSE apologised and, in the face of legal actions, paid out compensation — not because the law banned abortion, but due to the mismanagement involved.

Dr Boylan will be aware that no medical body has ever suggested that abortion could be needed in order to give all necessary treatment required by a pregnant mother, and that in the Joint Oireachtas Committee hearing, which occurred one year after Savita’s death, masters of maternity hospitals also stated that no woman had died due to our laws vindicating the right to life of the unborn.

I am sure Dr Boylan will also be aware that, given that abortion is normally understood as an induced miscarriage, and as Savita was already in the process of having a miscarriage, it would have been by definition impossible to induce a miscarriage, given that one was already under way. The appropriate action was to expedite that natural miscarriage. Thus to link her death in the popular mind with abortion perpetuates a cover-up of the deplorable laxity involved.

We need insiders like Dr Boylan to stand up and to openly express opinions but, more importantly, we need such people to be entirely open, frank, and give the facts surrounding situations which reflect poorly upon their own profession. Gearoid Duffy, Lee Road,

Cork