Sir, - Se d'Alton (December 22nd) makes sweeping statements, ascribes false simplistic arguments to his opponents on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, and then happily demolishes them. The real situation is far more nuanced and subtle.
The direct/indirect principle is the basis of medical ethics worldwide. It is formally recognised in British law and in the laws of other jurisdictions. Some Irish lawyers blindly refuse to recognise it, but it is still implicit in many aspects of Irish law. The controversy over the separation of the Siamese twins in Britain revolved very much around interpretations of the medical facts, what was proposed, the intentions of those carrying it out, and what the chances were of a successful outcome. It was by no means as simple as Se d'Alton's letter implies.
Only a minute number of people wanted the deletion of the 1983 amendment from the Constitution in the few surveys where the question was put. Given the unambiguous stance of the medical organisations, Mr d'Alton's scaremongering on women's health is hard to take. Proponents of his stance in 1983 railed that 500 women a year would die as a result of the amendment. The reality is that Ireland ranks among the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant, and as the Green Paper on Abortion recognised, our maternal mortality rate is so low that it can hardly be improved.
This, however, does not stop people raising the same old tired red herrings again if it helps their agenda. Contrary to what Mr d'Alton states, most people recognise there is a fundamental difference between necessary medical treatments in pregnancy and the direct targeting of the life of the unborn. Sadly, such distinctions have been blurred in other countries, where abortion is now legal up to birth. - Yours, etc.,
Ruth Cullen, Dufferin Avenue, Dublin 8.