I submitted this to the online letters page of the Irish Examiner this afternoon, in response to an op-ed piece which contained a series of factual and legal inaccuracies. I am not sure if it will be published, yet, but it’s worth archiving here.
Dear Editor,
I write in response to Margaret Hickey’s article of 30th June. Ms Hickey makes some claims about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy (Amendment) (Fatal Foetal Abnormalities) Bill under debate in the Dáil with which I disagree.
a) Ms. Hickey’s claim that “fatal foetal abnormality” is not a legitimate term is unfounded. It is widely recognised by medical and legal authorities that this definition refers to a foetus which will not reach term, or a baby which will not survive outside the womb. Termination of such pregnancies has been recognised by doctors including Masters of the Holles Street and Rotunda Hospitals, Rhona Mahony and Fergal Malone, as a medical need and the compassionate choice for families undergoing this trauma.
b) Fatal foetal abnormality is not a term interchangeable with disability. It is also illogical and unfounded to relate legislation for abortion to legislation for euthanasia.
c) Ms Hickey states without grounding that the Wallace Bill is unconstitutional. With due respect to her and to the reported legal advice of the Attorney General to Government, the only entity which can make this designation is the Supreme Court. The Irish Supreme Court has never heard proceedings on this ground. Article 40.3.3 speaks of the “right to life of the unborn”; it is for the Supreme Court to decide if a Bill regarding foetuses which will never have life outside of the womb falls within this provision, as the Irish Government itself submitted in the European Court of Human Rights case D v Ireland. It would be legitimate within the wording of the provision for the Supreme Court to consider this Bill Constitutional.
d) Passing the Fatal Foetal Abnormalities Bill would not negate the need for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Rather, it would give relief to some families in traumatic circumstances while the country continues to debate a full repeal and the ensuing legislative possibilities.
e) The United Nations Human Rights Committee case of AM v Ireland has recently found that Ireland’s refusal to terminate on the grounds of fatal foetal abnormality breached AM’s human rights to privacy, including bodily integrity; to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and to freedom from discrimination. Ireland is in breach of its voluntary commitments under international human rights law. It is unconscionable that we allow this situation continue.
Is mise le meas,
Sandra Duffy,
PhD candidate in human rights law, UCC.
Sandra Duffy 