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.

maringo

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad. It also doesn't seem to address the position of pregnant women whose baby is diagnosed by their medical doctors as very damaged and unsurvivable outside the womb. All their doctors can do is give them information instead of medical treatment. Shocking that this is not addressed and they cannot get the medical termination they need in their own country and have to trek abroad for a termination. It must be desperate to be in that situation knowing their baby is not able to survive. But that's Ireland for you - exporting our problems as usual.

Cody Pomeray

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

Yes, I think the expectation is that the RCPI and the other colleges will write the specific guidelines.

I guess that is ideal to an extent - you don't want Government legislating for current developments in medical practice.

Of course, the aforementioned ban on terminations over a certain period of gestation would be something that, it appears, cannot be regulated. Either by the colleges or by anybody else.

maringo wrote: »

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad. It also doesn't seem to address the position of pregnant women whose baby is diagnosed by their medical doctors as very damaged and unsurvivable outside the womb. All their doctors can do is give them information instead of medical treatment. Shocking that this is not addressed and they cannot get the medical termination they need in their own country and have to trek abroad for a termination. It must be desperate to be in that situation knowing their baby is not able to survive. But that's Ireland for you - exporting our problems as usual.

I heard Pat Kenny make an excellent point this morning to the effect that Government could have managed this by defining the unborn as "the unborn which is viable outside of the womb". An interesting suggestion.

Did anybody listening to that interview this morning get the impression James Reilly was being handed notes?

On two occasions, questions were put to Reilly which he could not answer satisfactorily.

Then, in the process of answering the subsequent question, he would suddenly, inexplicably return to the previous question with a rational, procedural answer or extra official information.

wolfpawnat

Lemming wrote: »

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 ...

It is like saying, describe what you see in the dark. Describe depression. There is no right or wrong answer, it varies in every person.

It scares me that there is a chance a truly suicidal woman could be put through that sort of interview process, how is she supposed to keep any way composed through all that.

Zubeneschamali

Lemming wrote: »

The whole thing amounts to the following conversation:

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

There is always the possibility that the conversations will go:

"I'm suicidal and the cause is my pregnancy!"

"I doubt that that is your only issue, please make an appointment to see a counsellor after your termination. Next."

JRant

Where are all these psychiatrists going to come from?

"Basic specialist services (other than child psychiatry and psychiatry of old age) were generally not available outside Dublin, and availability within Dublin appeared to be contingent upon geographical proximity to specialist services. Dedicated adolescent psychiatric services were not available to 88% of the population. There was no specialist neuropsychiatric service available for the vast majority of the total population. Availability of eating disorder services was largely restricted to those domiciled in the Dublin area."

http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/28/10/364.full


Seems like this is either going to be completely unworkable or will swallow up vast resources that could be used in a far better way. One single case could conceivably take up to 4 separate psychiatrists at a time when they are a scarce resource.

So while these four professions are trawling through red-tape, real problems like men under the age of 35 accounting for 40% of all suicides are being put on the back-burner.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0910/suicidepreventionreport.pdf

JRant

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is like saying, describe what you see in the dark. Describe depression. There is no right or wrong answer, it varies in every person.

It scares me that there is a chance a truly suicidal woman could be put through that sort of interview process, how is she supposed to keep any way composed through all that.

Another important aspect that seems to be overlooked is that it takes time for a psychiatrist to make a decision on a persons state of mind. The psychiatrist has to build up a rapport with the patient. I'm not sure it is at all workable.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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.
.

I don't see why. They're obligated to legislate for suicide. The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.

Jrant wrote:

Where are all these psychiatrists going to come from?

Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

Lemming

Nodin wrote: »

Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

I believe there are - if recent newspaper articles are to be believed - also only three obstetricians in the country; all located in the Dublin region. Unworkable before diving into whatever religious views any of those three may or may not hold to.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is always the possibility that the conversations will go:

"I'm suicidal and the cause is my pregnancy!"

"I doubt that that is your only issue, please make an appointment to see a counsellor after your termination. Next."

But that's not how this whole farce has been constructed. Three opinions all reaching unanimous consensus are required. And the general impression I am left with from all the various political commentary regarding the structure of all of this is that it is intended to be as obstructive & daunting as possible for any woman desperate enough to submit herself to the process.

So, you're right ... the conversation could go that way; but such a process that requires unanimous agreement has been concocted with the original dialogue in mind, i.e. "we/I don't believe you". That's all it takes, one member of the panel, or subsequent appeals panel to say "I don't believe you" for whatever reason they want, with very little legal comeback if a suicide does result, and that's that.

As I've said, this has nothing to do with women or medical practitioners. It has everything to do with spineless cretins without any ounce of conviction sitting in Leinster House trying to ensure their own self-interest by refusing to act on the X case in any meaningful or compassionate manner, or provide clear guidance to medical practitioners to avoid another tragic Sativa case.

BluntGuy

maringo wrote: »

Can't see any woman putting herself through what is proposed if she has the money to go abroad.

And thus the status quo is maintained.

Lemming wrote:

As I've said, this has nothing to do with women or medical practitioners. It has everything to do with spineless cretins without any ounce of conviction sitting in Leinster House trying to ensure their own self-interest by refusing to act on the X case in any meaningful or compassionate manner

+1 It's disgraceful.

Sierra Oscar

I think the legislation is to be welcomed, for far too long now our politicians have sought to put this whole issue on the long finger. We should have legislated for X long ago. I don't think it goes far enough myself, but it is a starting point considering how long it has taken to get this far.

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

K-9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

I assume a delivered baby to a suicidal mother would be offered up for adoption. I suppose we are getting into extreme, unlikely cases, but they can still happen.

If the mother refuses to consent to give birth, therein lies the problem?

Gbear

If they'd legislated for this when they were supposed to we might've had proper abortion legislation by now.

Sierra Oscar

K-9 wrote: »

I assume a delivered baby to a suicidal mother would be offered up for adoption. I suppose we are getting into extreme, unlikely cases, but they can still happen.

If the mother refuses to consent to give birth, therein lies the problem?

Well obviously that would be an extreme case, whereby the mother refused to consent to birth. If that was the case, and the mother was found to be genuinely suicidal, then surely she would be involuntary admitted to a psychiatric hospital to safeguard the life of the unborn? In reality though it is unlikely that this situation would ever arise. If someone only sought to argue at the very end of a pregnancy that the pregnancy was the cause of their suicidal thoughts, then the question arises as to why they weren't affected throughout the pregnancy. The answer that immediately springs to mind is that the pregnancy is not the underlying cause of suicidal thoughts, and therefore the termination would be denied.

Your right though, there is plenty yet to be clarified as to how this will work in practice.

K-9

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well obviously that would be an extreme case, whereby the mother refused to consent to birth. If that was the case, and the mother was found to be genuinely suicidal, then surely she would be involuntary admitted to a psychiatric hospital to safeguard the life of the unborn?

It might be extreme, but the right to life of the unborn comes into direct conflict with the right of the mother. A viable baby outside the womb is then in risk of being aborted. Unconstitutional?

jank

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I think the legislation is to be welcomed, for far too long now our politicians have sought to put this whole issue on the long finger. We should have legislated for X long ago. I don't think it goes far enough myself, but it is a starting point considering how long it has taken to get this far.

Also, I notice that there is some commentary about the lack of a time limit being outlined with the insinuation that an abortion could occur in a nine month pregnancy or the likes. That is clearly not the case, as delivery - not abortion - would be the intervention once the foetus has become viable. A pregnancy can be terminated through delivery, and not only through abortion.

What is FF's position on this, they have been very quiet on this issue as of late.Was it mentioned in the Ard Feis?

The legislation is to be welcomed as it clears the air on what a doctor can and cannot do in case of an emergency.

Those who want abortion on demand, well this is not possible without a referendum. This legislation is in line with the x-case only, not some sweeping reform that makes abortion legal for all which was never on the cards. Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK. Will probably happen at some stage mind, then we can look forward to having this debate again!!

Zubeneschamali

jank wrote: »

Looking at the polls I dont think Irish people want an abortion regime like they have in the UK.

We already have an abortion regime like they have in the UK: 4000 abortions a year, abortion on demand.

We just outsource it to UK clinics.

jank

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

wolfpawnat

jank wrote: »

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

Though that is not the topic on discussion here, what I will say is it seems to be very difficult for a woman here to get information on that option too, and that is from my personal experience. It would seem the Irish government do everything to keep the mother with her child, even if it is not the best thing for either of them.

JRant

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see why. They're obligated to legislate for suicide. The structure of that legislation is entirely down to them.



Consultants, remember, not just a plain psychiatrist. Likewise the obstetricians. Will they rotate? If one of of the few specialised people on the panel is unambigously anti-abortion in all circumstances, will they be obliged to recuse themselves?

Good point, I assume that those psychiatrists who stated that suicide was not an option for abortion during the Oireachtas committee meetings will not be allowed on any panel dealing with such a case.

There's also the costs to consider, having 6 seperate consultant bills would soon add up to 1000's of euro quite easily. If you had that money a quick trip over the sea would save you a fortune.

For those who can't afford the fees or to travel then it becomes a craps shoot. Judging by the lack of consultant psychiatrists and obstetricians in the country the child could be about 9 years of age before the mother would be seen by all 6.

JRant

jank wrote: »

That is true to some extent yet why not put some effort into reducing those numbers by facilitating other options such as adoption?

Why don't we start acting like a civilised country and deal with the abortion issue ourselves? Instead of exporting our 'dirty little secret' across the Irish sea.

Anyway adoption is not the one stop shop that many seem to view it as either.