Savita tragedy forces Government to face up to divisive abortion question

Date Published: 21-Nov-2012

The circumstances surrounding the death of Savita Halappanavar in University College Hospital Galway have elicited outpourings of sympathy and expressions of anger throughout the world.

The anger was based on the view – so far not contradicted – that her death could have been preventable were it not for the current confused laws on when it is legal and appropriate for a medical termination to take place.

The story has dominated politics for the past week and cast a pall over it. It has also renewed focus – uncomfortably for some politicians – on the abortion laws and what has been done (or more pertinently not been done) to give statutory backing to the Supreme Court judgement in the X case.

There is no issue that fills most politicians with more dread than abortion. Nothing in Irish society is more divisive – the emotions and splits and anger are, you could imagine, of proportions approaching those expressed by both sides in the civil war.

The instantaneous global reach of Kitty Holland’s original article in the Irish Times was extraordinary – within the space of 24 hours the story was shared and tweeted among millions of people across the continents.

Faced with such outrage and anger, it is certain that Ms Halappanavar’s death did focus minds in Government and stopped the foot-dragging that has been evident for the past several months over how to tackle the tangled abortion question.

At the same time, given the enormity of the reaction – and backlash – it might have been tempting for the Government to come up with some knee-jerk response. It would have been unworthy of it to have done so for obvious reasons.

All in all it has taken the right approach by taking a step back and allowing the space to allow such important and fundamental issues to be decided in a calmer atmosphere. To seek the answers you must know what the questions are.

There are two separate deliberations taking place. One is the investigation into Ms Halappanavar’s death. The other is the (distinct but, now, related) process to come up with a solution that will once and for all deal with the ruling in the X case.

The independent investigation surrounding the death of the 31-year old, who was 17 weeks pregnant, is likely to take three months.

Already, so many narratives have been told, so many conclusions reached, that there is little point in saying don’t prejudge. That has been done already. Her husband said that when she begged for a termination (of a pregnancy that was going to miscarry in any instance) she was told that Ireland was a Catholic country. That statement has really stuck out and must be investigated.

Will some other previously unknown circumstances come out in the investigation? There just seems to be a sense that some parts of what happened have not been fully explained yet.

The Fine Gael TD for Galway West Brian Walsh pointed out last week that UHG is not run by a religious order and doesn’t have a Catholic ethos as such. He also said it was his understanding that medical terminations have been carried out in the hospital in accordance with Medical Council guidelines and the ruling in the X-case.

It all just seems a little anomalous but it will be February before the outcome of the investigation will be made known, and we will know if the tragedy had a connection with over restrictive or unclear laws, or if there was another reason.

The tragedy almost coincided with the completion of the report of an expert group, chaired by High Court judge Sean Ryan, which explored the options available to the Government to give effect to the judgement in the X-case. As it happened, the report was delivered to the Minister for Health James Reilly on the same day as the article appeared.

For more, read this week’s Connacht Tribune.