Death of Savita Halappanavar

Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 00:00

   

Sir, – No one should be misled by the statement of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference (Home News, November 20th) into thinking that Catholic moral teaching would have permitted action to save the life of Savita Halappanavar. What she needed was precisely “the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby” as the only available means for saving her life. The bishops reiterate their opinion that this is “gravely immoral in all circumstances”. They just did not have the courage to point out the implications of their doctrine for this particular case. – Yours, etc,

Prof JOHN BAKER,

UCD School of Social Justice,

Dublin 4.

Sir, – “This is a Catholic country”. These callous words were spoken to Praveen Halappanavar, more than once it seems, in the days before the death of his wife. If the speaker believed her life was in danger, they should, and could, have acted under the law of this country to prevent her death. If they sincerely believed that all was well, then they should have reassured him. But, instead of focusing on their patient and on keeping her husband informed, it seems they preferred to make statements about Ireland and Catholicism. Now, the life of Savita Halappanavar has been lost and the public life of this country has been poisoned to a degree unequalled in recent times. – Yours, etc,

EDMOND GRACE SJ,

Jesuit Community,

Dublin 2.

Sir, – Of all the many demeaning discriminations that Irish women have had to fight since the founding of this State: legal restrictions on jury service, inheritance, rights to the family home, working after marriage, and the infamous “criminal conversation law”, in which a wife was defined as her husband’s chattel, with a cash value, none is more degrading than the current one: being defined as a category of persons whose lives are not worth more than a seventeen-week non-viable fetus. – Yours, etc,

Dr EILEEN KANE,

Kilcolgan,

Co Galway.

A chara, – Patsy McGarry (November 20th) is incorrect in his presentation of the church’s changing stance on “ensoulment” throughout history. While directly referring to a number of eminent thinkers, he fails to link the evolution of the thought in the church with scientific enlightenment.

The church is often portrayed as “anti-science” (the misleading retrospective presentation of the Galileo controversy being the main example) but this is not the case.

The church, as well as what is verifiable by science, has evolved its understanding of when life begins. The church is clear that it cannot be known precisely when ensoulment takes place, or when the exact moment of death (desoulment) takes place, but works with science to confirm when we can be sure the soul is no longer present.

In death this is, according to Pope John Paul II, a single event, consisting of the total disintegration of the unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self. The beginnings are also hard to define, but the church has evolved from the time of Aquinas when there was no knowledge or understanding of fertilisation and pregnancy was akin to “rennet coagulating menstrual milk”. Science and religion now coincide in agreeing that a unitary and integrated being now starts uniquely at conception and though we cannot be sure when exact ensoulment takes place, it is clear that a new life is present.

That life begins at conception, unlike earlier speculation by individuals, based on reason, is official church teaching.