Sir, - In an interview (The Irish Times July 4th), Dr Peter McKenna stated that abortions are being carried out in the State to save the life of the mother. This statement by the Master of the Rotunda Hospital cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
What is at issue in the abortion debate is induced abortion, i.e. deliberate, intentional destruction of unborn human life. I refute the claim that abortions have been, or are being, carried out by any obstetrician in the State. For abortion, it is necessary that there be the intent to procure it. Abortion must not be confused with incidental foetal loss arising out of necessary treatment of the mother during pregnancy.
Peter Charleton, a senior counsel, states: "Where an ectopic pregnancy occurs or where a hysterectomy has to be performed because, for example, of cancer, it is normal practice in this jurisdiction to proceed with the operation, despite the incidental destruction of the unborn life. In a situation where a medical condition requires treatment, and that treatment involves, as an incident, the possible destruction of the foetus, the doctor does not intend to procure a miscarriage. His purpose is to operate in order to cure a pressing medical condition".
The Medical Council has stated that: " . . . it is unethical always to withold treatment beneficial to a pregnant woman, by reason of her pregnancy".
Dr McKenna cites molar pregnancy and cancer of the cervix as two instances where abortion was necessary to save the mother's life. Evacuation of a molar pregnancy, even if it results in the death of a co-existing twin and hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix, diagnosed in early pregnancy, are standard methods of treatment and both are ethical.
What is intended by Dr McKenna when he states that "we were told before the last referendum by eminent people that they had never seen cancer of the cervix and it was not an issue. Then when it did arise we were all give absolution"? By whom was he told, by whom was he given absolution and absolution from what? The Master of the Rotunda must be aware that almost all, if not all, abortions currently being carried out are for "quasi-social" reasons.
I believe that withholding necessary medical treatment during pregnancy, lest it result in death of the foetus, is altogether unacceptable but I know of no circumstance where the life of a mother can only be saved by induced abortion, that is, by the deliberate intentional destruction of her unborn child.
Abortion is an emotive issue. It behoves everyone, but especially those in the health care professions, to be altogether objective in our approach to this distressing problem. My advice, as a more senior colleague, would be to try not "muddy the water". - Yours, etc., Eamon O'Dwyer,
Professor (emeritus) of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Ireland, Galway.