William Oddie writes:
The Irish Government, reports the Irish
Independent, “has come under heightened pressure to reform complex abortion
laws after the death of a pregnant Indian woman who suffered a miscarriage.”
The facts are these. A 31-year-old dentist was 17
weeks pregnant when she died on October 28 after suffering a miscarriage and
septicaemia. Her husband, Praveen, has alleged that doctors refused several
requests for a medical termination because the foetus’s heartbeat was present.
Mr Halappanavar has claimed that following his late wife’s appeals, they were
told: “This is a Catholic country.”
This is a case which clearly needs looking at
closely; on the face of it, a refusal to save Mrs Halappanavar’s life by
inducing her unborn child, when it was clear that her death would in any case
lead to the death of the child (this in fact happened in this case), does not
seem to be consistent either with Catholic moral theology or, it is now being
claimed, with Irish law or the guidelines which govern medical practice in such
cases.
The anti-Catholic Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, is
predictably, of course, and some would say cynically, exploiting the situation,
and has declared that his government will respond by the end of the month to a
2010 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that called for the reform of
the Irish abortion law. He said: “This is a tragic case where we have a woman
who lost her life, her child is lost and her husband is bereaved. We have
agreed to be in contact with the (European) court by November 30.”
The fact is, however, that this tragic death by
no means justifies any change to Irish law — or medical practice, if it is
properly carried out according to Irish Medical Council guidelines. Eilís
Mulroy has a comment piece today, also in the Irish Independent, under the
headline “Pro-choice
side must not hijack this terrible event”, asking the obvious question:
“Was Ms Halappanavar treated in line with existing obstetrical practice in
Ireland? In this kind of situation the baby can be induced early (though is
very unlikely to survive). The decision to induce labour early would be fully
in compliance with the law and the current guidelines set out for doctors by
the Irish Medical Council.
“Those guidelines allow interventions to treat women
where necessary, even if that treatment indirectly results in the death to the
baby. If they aren’t being followed, laws about abortion won’t change that. The
issue then becomes about medical protocols being followed in hospitals and not
about the absence of legal abortion in Ireland.”
It looks to me as though Pius XII’s ruling on
such cases is relevant here (and also as though the ignorance of their religion
of those treating Mrs Halappanavar — who refused to save her mouthing the words
“this is a Catholic country” — has a lot to answer for): “If,” said Pope Pius
in 1951, “the saving of the life of the future mother … should urgently require
a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory
consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the
fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent
life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar
medical interventions — granted always that a good of high worth is concerned,
such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after
the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
This principle has always governed Irish medical
practice, and it looks very much as though it should have done here. Eilís
Mulroy quotes Professor John Bonnar, then chairman of the Institute of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who spoke about the matter to the All Party
Parliamentary Committee’s Fifth Report on Abortion, saying: “In current
obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic
intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or
no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity.
“In these exceptional situations failure to
intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that
there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the
intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and
the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect
the life of the mother.”
Ireland, in fact, has one of the lowest death
rates of mothers in pregnancy anywhere in the world. That didn’t help Mrs
Halappanavar or her baby, both of whom were lost because normal medical
practice in Ireland was not followed after a grossly misplaced application to
her case, by those treating her, of a heretical misreading of Catholic moral
law. These tragic deaths cannot justify the replacement of the world’s most
civilised abortion law by the pro-death laws now almost universal throughout
Europe. Catholics everywhere should pray for Ireland in these politically
dangerous times.
The pro-life cause is now safest on the island of Ireland in that part which remains within the United Kingdom. There will be no change there without consensus among the parties. And there will never be any such consensus.
The pro-life cause is now safest on the island of Ireland in that part which remains within the United Kingdom. There will be no change there without consensus among the parties. And there will never be any such consensus.
The Herald have taken it down, very odd.
ReplyDelete