Explain ‘serious risk’ in abortion
DURING the recent Claire Byrne Live abortion debate on RTE 1, Dr Peter Boylan, in reference to the Irish government’s proposal for abortion between 12 weeks and viability (24 weeks), claimed that this would only apply in the case of “serious risk”.
He was either mistaken or he was being disingenuous.
Under Head 4 of in the government’s general scheme for the termination of pregnancy, a termination (defined in the scheme as “a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of the foetus”) will be lawful where “there is a risk to the life, or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman”, her child has “not reached viability” (ie 24 weeks gestation), and “it is appropriate to carry out the termination of pregnancy to avert that risk”.
One is drawn to the words “serious harm”. Of far greater significance, might prove to be in practice are the phrases, “there is a risk…” and “it is appropriate… in order to avert that risk.”
“A risk” could be any risk. “Appropriate… to avert” does not preclude resort to termination where the risk identified is otherwise entirely manageable or treatable.
If the government intended this clause to be restrictively interpreted, so as to preclude resort to abortion where the risk is otherwise manageable, it would have added “save where that risk may be averted by any other appropriate means”.
If the Eighth Amendment is repealed and replaced by the Oireachtas with legislation for the government’s preferred wording,it can be expected that this view (substituting Oireachtas for government) will be urged on any court. Under Head 4, the averting of an identified risk would be deemed at least as appropriate by termination (abortion) as by any other means. I believe this is how any legislation adopting the wording of Head 4 would be applied by “pro-choice” doctors, and interpreted by the courts, following removal of the last constitutional right of the unborn child, not to be killed.
CATHAL QUINN Letterkenny Ireland