Protection of Life in Pregnancy: heads of bill published

Cody Pomeray

The heads of the bill are available here in PDF
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Protection-of-Life-During-Pregnancy-Bill-PLP-30.04.13-10.30.pdf

In summary --

Any termination of pregnancy will be brought about under the parameters relating to

(1) Risk of loss of life from physical illness in a medical emergency

• requires a minimum of one opinion of one medical practitioner acting alone, or with another practitioner who performs the termination
• the deciding medical practitioner is required to certify that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman,
• the medical practitioner who carries out the procedure will be required to certify the reasons for his/her actions
• notification of all emergency terminations will be sent to the Minister.

(2) Risk of loss of life from physical illness, not being a risk of self destruction

• 2 medical practitioners examine the mother before signing off
• it is expected that this would follow on from a "multi-disciplinary discussion"

(3) Risk of loss of life from self-destruction

• Requires the opinion of 3 medical practitioners, acting unanimously
• one being an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who must be employed at that location,
• two of them being psychiatrists, both of whom shall are employed at any centre which is registered by the Mental Health Commission

It seems to me that the Government have made this as watertight as possible to prevent "the slippery slope" into abortion on demand.

I believe that there will be a greater liberalisation of the legislation over time, but that it is difficult to argue that the proposed legislation represents a liberalisation of the current legal situation on the right to life of the unborn balanced with the right to life of the mother.

One interesting, perhaps worrying feature of the legislation is that it bears no limit on any termination over the course of gestation.

That is to say, unlike what is often called "abortion on demand" being available up until a certain period of pregnancy, it appears that the X Case judgement of the Supreme Court precludes any cut-off date for permissible terminations, even where the foetus is viable.

Anyone else have any interesting observations or comments on the proposed law?

Zubeneschamali

It looks like an effort to continue the current liberal abortion-on-demand culture for anyone with the fare to the UK.

Mr.Micro

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It looks like an effort to continue the current liberal abortion-on-demand culture for anyone with the fare to the UK.

Here in Ireland just pretend and let others provide offshore, effectively export the problem from a good Catholic country. There will be no upsetting the electorate then with FG, labour and as we saw with FF at their back slapping Ard Fheis. Its a step in the right direction I guess.

Iwasfrozen

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Here in Ireland just pretend and let others provide offshore, effectively export the problem from a good Catholic country. There will be no upsetting the electorate then with FG, labour and as we saw with FF at their back slapping Ard Fheis. Its a step in the right direction I guess.

Hardly, we can't control the government in the UK but we have a right to decide matters in our own country.

Zubeneschamali

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hardly, we can't control the government in the UK but we have a right to decide matters in our own country.

Yes, by upholding the right of pregnant women to obtain abortion information and travel to the UK for abortions.

Iwasfrozen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, by upholding the right of pregnant women to obtain abortion information and travel to the UK for abortions.

Yep.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

......

It seems to me that the Government have made this as watertight as possible to prevent "the slippery slope" into abortion on demand.

I believe that there will be a greater liberalisation of the legislation over time, but that it is difficult to argue that the proposed legislation represents a liberalisation of the current legal situation on the right to life of the unborn balanced with the right to life of the mother.

One interesting, perhaps worrying feature of the legislation is that it bears no limit on any termination over the course of gestation.

That is to say, unlike what is often called "abortion on demand" being available up until a certain period of pregnancy, it appears that the X Case judgement of the Supreme Court precludes any cut-off date for permissible terminations, even where the foetus is viable.

Anyone else have any interesting observations or comments on the proposed law?

With regards to the suicide element, it would appear to give a nod to accessability, while being in fact sufficiently daunting to convince any woman capable of travelling to do so. The need for a unanimous verdict is draconian in the extreme, given the small pool of qualified consultants in the required areas.

In all probability it's going to be young girls unable to travel who'll have to face this triumvirate.

Zubeneschamali

Nodin wrote: »

In all probability it's going to be young girls unable to travel who'll have to face this triumvirate.

or commit suicide to avoid facing it.

wolfpawnat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

or commit suicide to avoid facing it.

Suicide from pregnancy numbers seem to be minimal (thank goodness) but running the gauntlet of your GP, an obstetrician and 2 psychiatrists is not something a girl truly in that position needs!

Zubeneschamali

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Suicide from pregnancy numbers seem to be minimal (thank goodness)

How would anyone know that?

Nodin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

or commit suicide to avoid facing it.

....that would be more my fear for the few who couldn't travel.

wolfpawnat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How would anyone know that?

Post Mortem would indicate if there was a pregnancy and method of death. 1 + 1 = 2 more often than not.

Then again pre-natal depression is hard to diagnose and only can be realised if the woman herself comes forward with the information.

Very little, if any, concrete information is available on these numbers, but I would assume there would be a hell of a lot more wrong with a woman than pregnancy if she is suicidal!

Zubeneschamali

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Very little, if any, concrete information is available on these numbers

Exactly, which is why I was wondering how you came up with:

Suicide from pregnancy numbers seem to be minimal (thank goodness)

In fact, you just assume that.

wolfpawnat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I was wondering how you came up with:



In fact, you just assume that.

Hence why I said seem instead of are. I would assume that there would be a nation wide appeal from the maternity care and mental health care professionals if there were greater numbers. In all of my maternity appointments, you get an obligatory "How are you feeling emotionally?" But all the literature and the like seldom deals with it.Though as I said, if you are suicidal, I am sure pregnancy is more often one of the factors, not the out and out cause, unless it is full-blown pre-natal depression, which is more often a hormone imbalance, and can be aided (though not cured)

Zubeneschamali

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I would assume that there would be a nation wide appeal from the maternity care and mental health care professionals if there were greater numbers.

They have no more idea what these numbers are than you do. Nobody is counting.

blubloblu

Does this provide any additional clarity to doctors making the decision, other than specifying how many are to be involved? Are there any guidelines/definitions as to what exactly a "substantial" risk of death is?

Cookie_Monster

So if these three doctors say there is no risk of suicide and the girl then kills herself is there any punishment for them?

Zubeneschamali

blubloblu wrote: »

Are there any guidelines/definitions as to what exactly a "substantial" risk of death is?

No.

seamus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So if these three doctors say there is no risk of suicide and the girl then kills herself is there any punishment for them?

Not unless it could be shown that the 3 individuals erred substantially in their decision.

Then I guess there's some form of criminal negligence.

It would still be possible for them to make the medically correct decision based on the facts and their assessment, but for the suicide to still occur. Such is the nature of it.

Cookie_Monster

seamus wrote: »

Not unless it could be shown that the 3 individuals erred substantially in their decision.

Then I guess there's some form of criminal negligence.

It would still be possible for them to make the medically correct decision based on the facts and their assessment, but for the suicide to still occur. Such is the nature of it.

so essentially they can just deny the abortion 100% of the time without reprimand, progress it seems :rolleyes:....

seamus

Well yes, but I like to give medical professionals the benefit of the doubt that they will make a decision based on what's right for the patient. Naive, I know

To a certain extent it's luck of the draw in terms of which psychiatrists you get, but that's the point of the appeals process I suppose.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

With regards to the suicide element, it would appear to give a nod to accessability, while being in fact sufficiently daunting to convince any woman capable of travelling to do so.

In order to be regular and in line with the Constitution, that was an inevitability.

There would seem to have to be a very high risk of maternal death for an abortion to be permissible in this jurisdiction - the conditions implied by the X case ruling set out Ireland's constitutional requirements as being an inevitably stricter determination of risk to maternal life than exists in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Government to legislate for a more liberal provision without a constitutional referendum.

Either way, my biggest surprise at the heads of bill is how starightforward the whole thing has been made.

If it was this easy, why has it taken them 21 years?

Or longer again, if you;re counting from the Eighth amendment in 1983.

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Not quite correct.

There are conditions implied in the X case judgement

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/B95A1F8B726975F18025765E003C2C6E/$FILE/AG%20v%20X_1992.rtf

Zubeneschamali

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There are conditions implied in the X case judgement

Sure, but they are not in the heads of this law.

There is this:

In this regard, it is important that professional guidance is developed by the relevant professional Colleges for their members on the operation of this legislation. In order to facilitate this and to ensure its timely development, the Department of Health will support and work very closely with all the relevant professional bodies (particularly, the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Royal College of Physicians and the Irish College of General Practitioners) in developing guidelines for their members on the implementation of the legislation following enactment of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill. Steps have already been taken to establish the willingness of these Professional Medical bodies to work with the department on such guidance

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In order to be regular and in line with the Constitution, that was an inevitability.

There would seem to have to be a very high risk of maternal death for an abortion to be permissible in this jurisdiction - the conditions implied by the X case ruling set out Ireland's constitutional requirements as being an inevitably stricter determination of risk to maternal life than exists in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Government to legislate for a more liberal provision without a constitutional referendum.

Either way, my biggest surprise at the heads of bill is how starightforward the whole thing has been made.

If it was this easy, why has it taken them 21 years?

Or longer again, if you;re counting from the Eighth amendment in 1983.

A majority being required rather than all three doesn't strike me as being so liberal as to require any referendum.

Callan57

seamus wrote: »

Well yes, but I like to give medical professionals the benefit of the doubt that they will make a decision based on what's right for the patient. Naive, I know

To a certain extent it's luck of the draw in terms of which psychiatrists you get, but that's the point of the appeals process I suppose.

Which is why if it was me or my daughter my first point of contact would be the Ryanair or Aer Lingus web site ... I certainly would not be risking meeting up with a doctor or psychiatrist who put their own personal views or prejudices before my or my daughters life or health.
They make me sick the lot of them ... Thank God for "the mainland".

P_1

This bill strikes me as being yet another "Irish solution to an Irish problem".

K-9

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

One interesting, perhaps worrying feature of the legislation is that it bears no limit on any termination over the course of gestation.

That point was made on the VB show last night, and I don't think anybody addressed it, probably because they couldn't. If the baby is viable outside the womb from say 24/25 weeks up it leaves quite the dilemma.

wolfpawnat

K-9 wrote: »

That point was made on the VB show last night, and I don't think anybody addressed it, probably because they couldn't. If the baby is viable outside the womb from say 24/25 weeks up it leaves quite the dilemma.

That is the dilemma, it has a chance of survival after 24 weeks, but what does that mean for a suicidal women at 28 weeks? Is it fair to make her carry it and risk her killing them both? Is it fair to kill a legitimately viable life? I am so glad I am not a psychiatrist.

Lemming

Nodin wrote: »

With regards to the suicide element, it would appear to give a nod to accessability, while being in fact sufficiently daunting to convince any woman capable of travelling to do so. The need for a unanimous verdict is draconian in the extreme, given the small pool of qualified consultants in the required areas.

In all probability it's going to be young girls unable to travel who'll have to face this triumvirate.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Suicide from pregnancy numbers seem to be minimal (thank goodness) but running the gauntlet of your GP, an obstetrician and 2 psychiatrists is not something a girl truly in that position needs!

Any woman suicidal & desperate enough to submit herself to the mercy of such a system is indeed very very desperate. The whole thing is a cruel, unsympathetic, and deeply cynical exercise in doing what's right for politicians, not women. Or medical professionals for that matter. It is absolutely shameless.

The whole thing amounts to the following conversation:

"I'm suicidal".
"Prove it".

I have never studied psychology, yet it strikes me as "what-not-to-do 101" captain-obvious stuff, and I would be deeply concerned at any medical professional espousing such a stance. And yet, here we are ...

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

A majority being required rather than all three doesn't strike me as being so liberal as to require any referendum.

But that wasn't the point I was addressing.

I was addressing your point that the procedure is still so daunting that most women (except for those who cannot afford the procedure, or some equally serious reason) will travel to England.

Whether the deciding panel makes its decision by unanimous verdict or majority vote, the Constitutional position unchanged by the proposed legislation means any Irish procedure is inevitably going to be far more of an ordeal than the English procedure.

K-9 wrote: »

That point was made on the VB show last night, and I don't think anybody addressed it, probably because they couldn't. If the baby is viable outside the womb from say 24/25 weeks up it leaves quite the dilemma.

I think it is worrying that the Government are willing to put blind faith in the medical community in this respect.

I am very pro choice and favour liberal abortion legislation. But the idea that the Government would, on the one hand, shirk from liberal abortion law, at the same time provide an open-ended window for termination of viable foetuses is just grotesque.