Does the Protection of Life During pregnancy act cover people with other threats?

komodosp

Reading the pamphlet about the forthcoming abortion referendum, I noticed one thing, where it describes the Protection of Life During Pregnancy act.

It states that a termination would be permitted if the pregnancy posed a substantial risk to the mother's life.

But does it also allow a termination where the life is not directly threatened by the pregnancy? e.g. if the mother had Cancer and required treatment, but that treatment would pose a serious risk to the unborn child, does it allow the treatment to go ahead anyway? (even though it's not the pregnancy which is posing the threat, but the untreated cancer)

Caranica

No, that's one of the biggest issues with the 8th. Women going through chemo have to have pregnancy tests before each round of treatment. If positive, no chemo.

Similarly drugs like certain anti epileptics and anti depressants are witheld during pregnancy. There was one of the "In her Irish Shoes" stories last week about an epileptic and it was scary

Itssoeasy

My understanding is it's a risk to life of the mother. I think there have been seven terminations under the 2013 law since it came into force.

komodosp

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My understanding is it's a risk to life of the mother. I think there have been seven terminations under the 2013 law since it came into force.

I understand that it's to do with the risk to the mother, but my question is about whether the source of the risk must be the pregnancy itself for the termination to be allowed. Cancer is a serious risk, especially if left untreated for 9 months, but going by Caranica's post, chemo could not be performed which is fairly shocking IMHO...

Mrs OBumble

komodosp wrote: »

I understand that it's to do with the risk to the mother, but my question is about whether the source of the risk must be the pregnancy itself for the termination to be allowed. Cancer is a serious risk, especially if left untreated for 9 months, but going by Caranica's post, chemo could not be performed which is fairly shocking IMHO...

You are mis-informed. It's not about risk to the mother. It's about her certain death if untreated.

So an induced abortion can be performed if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, because that will certainly kill her if it's untreated.

But not if she develops an condition (pregnancy related or not) which increases the likelihood of having a fatal or life-changing event (eg heart attack, stroke, seizure) but is not guaranteed to kill her.

Treatment for cancer is different again: most chemo drugs are not licensed for use on pregnant women, so cannot be given to someone who is pregnant. Abortion is a way of becoming un-pregnant faster, so speeds up the time when the drugs can be given. But it's not the only treatment option.

komodosp

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You are mis-informed. It's not about risk to the mother. It's about her certain death if untreated.

Really? The little booklet, apparently from the referendum commission, says it's "...it is lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated only where it poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother..." Doesn't say anything about certain death. Is the booklet wrong?

hullaballoo

"Real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" is treated in practice as being a case of the mother will die but for an abortion.

There are plenty of cases that have attracted a lot of publicity on this point. The prevailing practice from the medical profession is to adopt the most legally safe way of working to avoid suit and censure.

Women have died as a direct result of being legally safe but because their death may not have been imminent at the time the question was raised, it did not satisfy the requirements of the 8th amendment, according to the strictest interpretation favoured by doctors trying to avoid suit and censure.