Courtney McGrailDear Editor, The recent case of a pregnant woman on life support had nothing to do with abortion. Ordinary lay people could see that. The evidence in court was so unanimously against the baby’s chances of survival there could only be one end to this tragedy.
Michael McDowell, ex-Attorney General and Tánaiste, was right when he said that the case shouldn’t even have appeared before the courts. If there was no need for this test case before the exalted courts of the land, then there was no need for the harrowing delay of her funeral.
Our constitution, in Article 40.3.3 (the Eighth Amendment) does not say a baby’s life is to be preserved at all costs. The law states only “in as far as practicable”. In the same way, for instance, a baby dies in cases of ectopic pregnancy. The baby is removed in the life-saving treatment of the mother, whether “there exists a heartbeat” or not. Cancer treatments too, no matter how dangerous to the young one, are offered to the mother.
It is the “direct” killing of a baby that the people forbid not where the baby dies as a result of treatment of, or the death of, the mother.
You would think from the reaction of some doctors, journalists and politicians, such a case as this had never occurred elsewhere. A simple Google search would have saved much abuse of the family and the State.
Amid such certainty about the medical prognosis for the baby, why were there such declarations of confusion? Could the legal advice be that poor? I wouldn’t dream of accusing all involved of being zealots for abortion-on-demand. My only other explanation is that some must suffer a lack of competency.
Perhaps instead of wanting to remove the baby’s only standing protection, i.e. the 8th amendment, we should examine who has been promoted beyond their qualifications and provide them with suitable help.
Yours etc.,
Pádraig Ó Laimhín,
Foxford,
Co Mayo.