Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page
INTRODUCTION 3
INDUCED ABORTION 4
Introduction 4
Present Guidelines 4
Approach to revising guidelines 6
General background: 6
Legal background 6
The issues raised: 7
General 7
Legal and ethical permissibility 7
The clinical issues 7
The medical response 8
Would medical practice be impaired by total abortion ban 9
Negative Consequences of Abortion 11
Recommendations 13
1
IVF INCLUDING EMBRYO STORAGE AND FREEZING 22
Introduction 22
More recent developments 22
Are there particular issues to be addressed by the Council? 22
Control of IVF by Council 23
General considerations 23
Inadequacy of pre-1998 Guidelines 23
Treatment of certain embryos 23
Should embryo freezing or storage be permissible? 24
The 2004 Guidelines 24.1, 24.2, 24.3, 24.4, 24.5 25
Guidelines 24.5 on In Vitro Fertilisation 25
Recommendations 26
OTHER MATTERS 27
Abortion Assistance & Referral 27
Introduction 27
General background: 27
Legal 27
The Abortion Information Act, 1995 27
Abortion Information Act - provisions and interpretation 27
Contradiction 28
Dual Patient model 29
Recommendations 29
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 30
CONCLUSION 32
2
INTRODUCTION
This submission to the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council deals with
five major areas: abortion, abortion assistance, euthanasia and the withdrawal
of feeding and the protection of human embryos.
Each chapter of the submission is laid out in a similar format – a short general
introduction setting the background to the chapter topic, followed by more
detailed background information and an ethical and legal appraisal of the
issues raised therefrom.
Each chapter ends with a number of short recommendations that the Pro-Life
Campaign would urge the Ethics Committee to adopt in its revision of the
Medical Council’s A Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour and to Fitness to
Practice.
3
INDUCED ABORTION
Introduction
In Ireland, the unborn child has for centuries been regarded as worthy of legal
protection. The Offences Against the Person Act 18611 prohibits abortion
under threat of penal sanction. In the 1983 referendum, the people approved
the insertion of Article 40.3.3o (the Eighth Amendment) into the Constitution
whereby “the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due
regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect
and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”. Given
the circumstances of the insertion of this assertive amendment into the
Constitution, it was considered at the time to copperfasten the legal prohibition
on induced abortion. However, following the decision of the Supreme Court in
the Attorney General v X and others (1992)2 it now appears that induced
abortion, in certain circumstances, is lawful in this jurisdiction. However, the X
case judgement is notoriously difficult to interpret as a basis for legislation.
The commendable attempt to correct the situation in the March 2002
referendum failed, amid unparalleled public confusion, but the result clearly
showed a national majority opposed to induced abortion in the Republic under
any circumstances.
Present Guidelines
1
Sections 58 and 59.
2
1992 1 IR 1.
4
illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and
could be considered to be professional misconduct.
5
Approach to revising Guidelines
The PLC suggests to the Medical Council that the revision of the Ethical
Guidelines be approached from the following standpoint:
2. The presumption that in pregnancy the doctor has a duty of care towards
two patients, the mother and the unborn child.
4. That the onus of proof is upon those who propose induced abortion to
produce evidence that there is no absolutely alternative.
In the light of this, the Pro-Life Campaign suggests that the following additions
to the Guide may clarify the matter beyond even unreasonable doubt:
1. A positive re-statement of the line that in pregnancy the doctor has a duty
of care towards two patients, the mother and the unborn child;
General Background
Since that case, different Governments took different approaches to the issue.
Following the rejection of the November 1992 referendum that allowed for
direct abortion along the lines envisaged in X (excluding suicide threats); A
commitment to legislate for X was later recognised as ‘very difficult, if not
impossible’3 and the commitment was dropped from subsequent programmes
for government. The narrow rejection of the 2002 Referendum indicated that
there was a majority opposed to induced abortion being carried out in Ireland
in any circumstances and also showed great concern for unimplanted human
embryos.
General
It is widely accepted that good ethical medical practice must always be based
upon principle. Ad hoc arrangements rather than responses based on
principle and ethics for dealing with any given situation could readily lay the
medical profession open to the charge of inconsistency at least and of being
self-serving at worst and would threaten the profession’s deserved reputation
for impartiality and the provision of medical care regardless of the class,
creed, lifestyle and ethnic origins of the patient and the doctor’s own personal
feelings towards him or her.
3
Health Minister Brendan Howlin, The Irish Times, 25 November 1994
7
Legality and Ethical Permissibility
The rule of law aims to serve society at large, while simultaneously upholding
the rights of the individual, insofar as they do not conflict with essential
societal interests. Whereas some unethical acts may be illegal, legality alone
does not determine whether a practice is ethical or not.
And the 1998 & 2004 guideline, now in force, holds the same
independent line:
“Medical care must not be used as a tool of the State, to be
granted or withheld or altered in character under political pressure.
Doctors require independence from such pressures in order to
carry out their duties. Regardless of their type of practice, the
responsibility of all doctors is to help the sick and injured. They
must practice without consideration of religion, nationality, gender,
race, politics or social standing. They must not allow their
professional actions to be influenced by any personal interest”.
8
Council’s 1994 Guidelines pointed out, no evidence has been produced to
support this position. The Pro-Life Campaign has continued to monitor the
national and international literature on the topic, and is satisfied that this
remains the case. By the word “abortion”, the Pro-Life Campaign means
induced abortion directly and deliberately targeting the life of the unborn child,
not where the unborn child is indirectly affected by proportionate and
necessary treatment of the mother. Deliberately induced abortion has no
place in the treatment of any maternal condition, either physical or
psychological.
9
In summary, the risks of treatment must be proportionate to the condition
being treated. In pregnancy, where uniquely, there is a simultaneous duty to
two patients, a fortiori, these considerations apply – with due regard to side
effects not alone to the mother but also to her unborn child. In no
circumstances, however, is it permissible to compromise the therapeutic
objective merely by virtue of the mother’s pregnancy. In this regard, the
Council’s current position on induced abortion reflects the reality but could be
strengthened to make the principles more explicit and clarify them. .
10
There can be no doubt that the use of drugs to reduce pain and
suffering will often be fully justified notwithstanding that it will, in
fact, hasten the moment of death, but … what can never be lawful
is the use of drugs with the primary purpose of hastening the
moment of death. … It matters not by how much or by how little [a]
death is hastened or intended to be hastened … even if [it be the
case that death was only hours or minutes away] no doctor can
lawfully take any step deliberately designed to hasten that death by
however short a period of time. … Alleviation of suffering means
the easing of it for so long as the patient survives, not the easing of
it in the throes of and because of deliberate purposed killing.”4
There is no reason to suggest that the courts in this jurisdiction would differ
from this statement of the law in its articulation of the underlying principles in
relation to the death of an unborn child during the course of the treatment of
an ill mother especially given the delimitation on the vindication of the right to
life of the unborn by considerations of reasonable practicability. The approach
that informs the Medical Council’s 1998 Guidelines on induced abortion also
reflects the principles underlying this analysis and again urges its retention.
4
R v Cox 12 BMLR 38 (Winchester Crown Court per Ognall J and approved in Airedale NHS
Trust v Bland 1993 1 All ER 821 (HL).
5
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM, Abortion in young women and subsequent mental
health, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (2006), 1: 16-24.
11
study, Prof. David Fergusson admitted: “I’m pro-choice but I’ve produced
results which, if anything, favour a pro-life viewpoint”.
6
Mika Gissler, Cynthia Berg, Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle, and Pierre Buekens, Injury deaths,
suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000, The European
Journal of Public Health 2005 15: 459-463.
7
Anne Nordal Broen, Torbjørn Moum, Anne Sejersted Bødtker and Øivind Ekeberg, The
course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year
follow-up study, BMC Medicine 2005, 3:18
12
Recommendations
That the revised Ethical Guidelines maintain the formulation of 12th September 200 1,
Clause 24.6 and 24.1 in 2004 guidelines, but, in other clauses, assert:
1. The principle that in pregnancy the doctor has a duty of care towards two patients,
the mother and the unborn child;
2. The principle that necessary treatments which carry a risk of unsought side effects
are ethical, even when the unsought effect is foreseeable, while procedures the
purpose of which are to cause the death of a patient are unethical.
5. Medical ethics do not follow each change in the law and mere legality is not
equivalent to ethical practice.
6. A prohibition on induced abortion is both feasible and ethically necessary, and has
not resulted in the treatment appropriate for the management of any ill mother
being compromised in any way.
13
EUTHANASIA
Introduction
In 1994, the Medical Council in A Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour and
to Fitness to Practise stated its position in relation to euthanasia as defined
therein. The Pro-Life Campaign welcomes the evolution of the Council’s
treatment of the issue over the past fifteen years and specifically endorses the
approach, which firmly places a prohibition on a medical practitioner’s
involvement in euthanasia within an ethical framework irrespective of what the
current legal situation might be. The Pro-Life Campaign urges the Medical
Council to re-assert the traditional opposition of the medical profession to
euthanasia and to further strengthen the profession’s protection of chronically
and terminally ill patients by stressing the relevance both of intention and
directness in the prohibition of killing, or causing the deaths of, such patients.
In the 1998 Guidelines, the principles are adequately covered in Sections 24
& 25 and in the 2004 Guidelines in Sections 22.1 and 23.1.
Euthanasia is, and has always been, illegal in Ireland. Involving, for medical
practitioners, as it does, the direct and intentional killing of a patient, it falls
within the general prohibition on homicide within the general law. Thus, briefly
put, a person is guilty of murder if (s)he, while intending to kill another or to
cause him or her serious injury, acts in a way that results in that other
person’s death within a year and a day of the date upon which the injury was
inflicted. However, because of a curious anomaly in the law, omissions that
have the same effect, except in certain limited circumstances, do not result in
criminal liability. In this regard, the law presumes (although it is a refutable
presumption) that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of
his or her actions8 (as distinct from omissions).
8
Criminal Justice Act 1964 s. 4.
14
However, that is not to say that foreseeability, in this context, is the test of
intention. Interestingly, the principle which underlines the treatment of
terminally ill patients is the same as that which governs the treatment of
illness in pregnant women, and would equally benefit from an explicit
affirmation that necessary treatments which carry a risk of unsought side
effects are ethical, even when the unsought effect is foreseeable, while
procedures which lead directly and intentionally to a patient’s death are
unethical.
In this regard, the Pro-Life Campaign herein repeats the arguments advanced
in considering procedures to save a pregnant woman’s life, which may
indirectly damage the unborn child. Thus, in everyday clinical practice, harm
or injury to a patient is readily foreseen as a consequence of each and every
diagnostic or therapeutic intervention. Nevertheless, in instances of serious or
life-threatening conditions, it is perfectly permissible to use treatments that
carry a risk of serious or even life threatening side effects. In such
circumstances, the doctor’s judgement may be that it is proper to incur grave
risks in the management of grave conditions. Thus, for example, in the
treatment of leukaemia, induced myelosuppression exposes the patient to the
risks of overwhelming sepsis and severe haemorrhage. Nevertheless, in the
circumstances, such risks are deemed acceptable in terms of the desired
outcome. However, what is intrinsic to such treatment decisions is that the
therapeutic option chosen must be the most effective and least toxic. Thus, if
there are two treatments, Treatment A and Treatment B, of equivalent
therapeutic efficacy, the ethical obligation is to chose that which is associated
with the least severe side effects. This is an essential component of ethical
practice but does not, of itself, preclude running serious risks in grave
conditions. In summary, the risks of treatment must be proportionate to the
condition being treated.
15
It has already been proposed in this submission that this principle might be
usefully incorporated in the section of the Guide pertaining to Ethical Conduct.
It is also worth reiterating the clear judicial expression of the underlying
principle, in a case involving a charge of attempted murder of a patient by her
consultant physician, which encapsulates the essentials of ethical (and lawful)
treatment was stated thus:
There can be no doubt that the use of drugs to reduce pain and
suffering will often be fully justified notwithstanding that it will, in
fact, hasten the moment of death, but … what can never be lawful
is the use of drugs with the primary purpose of hastening the
moment of death. … It matters not by how much or by how little [a]
death is hastened or intended to be hastened … even if [it be the
case that death was only hours or minutes away] no doctor can
lawfully take any step deliberately designed to hasten that death by
however short a period of time. … Alleviation of suffering means
16
the easing of it for so long as the patient survives, not the easing of
it in the throes of and because of deliberate purposed killing.”9
In the 1989 edition the final sentence of this statement was amended to read:
“Euthanasia, which involves actively causing the death of a person,
is illegal in Ireland and is professional misconduct.
In the 1994 edition, the final sentence was further amended as follows:
9
R v Cox 12 BMLR 38 (Winchester Crown Court per Ognall J and approved in Airedale NHS
Trust v Bland 1993 1 All ER 821 (HL).
17
understand, it is desirable that the doctor discusses management
with the next of kin or the legal guardians prior to reaching a
decision about the use or non-use of treatments which will not
contribute to recovery from the primary illness. In the event of
a dispute between doctors and relatives, a second opinion should
be sought from a suitably qualified independent medical
practitioner.
Access to nutrition and hydration remains one of the basic needs
of human beings, and all reasonable and practical efforts should
be made to maintain both of them.
It is clear from both the precision of the definition of euthanasia which has
evolved in the Medical Council’s guide over the past fifteen years, which
avoids doubt as to the subject matter of the prohibition, and the firm placing of
that prohibition within an ethical, as distinct from a solely legal, framework,
that the Medical Council was properly concerned with euthanasia as an
ethical issue, quite irrespective of what the prevailing law might happen to be.
Indeed, the Medical Council has gone further in this regard. In a statement
issued by the Council after its statutory meeting on August 4, 1995, the
Council drew attention to, and emphasised other provisions of the 1994 guide.
Thus, the Council noted paragraph 13.01 which states inter alia:
18
or withheld or altered in character under political pressure,
Regardless of the type of their practice, the responsibility of all
doctors is to help the sick and injured. Doctors must practise
without consideration of religion, nationality, race, politics or social
standing. Doctors should not allow their professional actions to be
influenced by any personal interest”
The Council also drew attention to the provisions of Article 2 of the Principles of
Medical Ethics in Europe which states:
“ …The doctor must not substitute his own definition of the quality
of life for that of his patient….”
On July 27, 1995, a majority of the Supreme Court upheld an earlier order of
the High Court that it was lawful to withdraw feeding from a seriously
handicapped woman – described as being in a ‘near permanent vegetative
state’ - in order that she might die.10 Although similar problems had previously
come before the courts in other jurisdictions, this was the first such case in
Ireland and focused attention not alone on an intensely difficult human
dilemma but also on conflicts between medical and legal analyses of the
same issues.
At its statutory meeting on August 4, 1995, the Medical Council considered
the decision of the Supreme Court in re a Ward of Court. In a statement
10
In the matter of A Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 IR 100.
19
issued after the meeting, the Medical Council drew attention to A Guide to
Ethical Conduct and Behaviour and to Fitness to Practise and, having
emphasised a number of particular paragraphs, already set out above, in
relation to a medical practitioner’s duty of care and euthanasia, stated:
“It is the view of the Council that access to nutrition and hydration is
one of the basic needs of human beings. This remains so even
when, from time to time, this need can only be fulfilled by means of
long established methods such as nasogastric and gastrostomy
tube feeding.
The Council sees no need to alter its Ethical Guide.”
The Pro-Life Campaign wholly endorses the position adopted by the Medical
Council and urges the express re-affirmation of the underlying principle in the
revised Guidelines.
20
Recommendations
1. The prohibition on euthanasia, in the clear and robust terms of the 1998 and 2004
Guides.
21
IVF INCLUDING EMBRYO FREEZING AND STORAGE
Introduction
On the 31st May 1985, it was reported in the medical press that three Irish
women had been successfully implanted in Ireland with ova fertilised in vitro.
The work, carried out by Prof. Robert Harrison, Consultant Gynaecologist, in
St. James'
s Hospital and Sir Patrick Dun'
s Hospital involved two campuses, as
equipment in each was essential.
In July 1985, the then Minister for Health, Barry Desmond, announced in the
Dáil that his department would examine the issue with a view to legislation.
One month later, in August 1985, a conference on the ethical and legal issues
in IVF was held in Maynooth. The Board of St. James' s Hospital imposed a
moratorium on further IVF work in St. James' s, pending the outcome of an
inquiry by a Board sub-committee into the matter. The Medical Council, by a
majority decision in December 1985 approved the guidelines on IVF
promulgated by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the Royal
College of Physicians of Ireland.11 This effectively delayed the re-introduction
of IVF in St. James’s until January 1986 at which point, however, the IVF
debate in Ireland, what little there was, had been effectively completed.
By 1998, it increasingly appeared from the medical press that embryo storage
was considered desirable from a clinical and patient standpoint. A sub-
11
A Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour and to Fitness to Practise (Third Edition)
approved by the Medical Council at its meeting on 7th October 1988 and published in March
1989.
12
A Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour and to Fitness to Practise (Fourth Edition)
approved by the Medical Council at its meeting on 1st October 1993 and published in January
1994
22
committee of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the Royal
College of Physicians of Ireland met to review its guidelines on IVF and as it
reached no agreed conclusions its Report was not published. In the meantime
the HARI Unit at the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin unilaterally proceeded with
freezing human embryos and even allegedly had clients sign “agreements”
that “unwanted human embryos” would be destroyed after five years. This
would, of course, be clearly unethical, illegal and opposed to the present
Guidelines. Clearly, the issue of freezing and storage of human embryos, as
opposed to the freezing of sperm and ova, will have to be seriously addressed
by the Medical Council and sanctions imposed. It is in this context and in the
context of disturbing and uncontroverted media reports regarding abuses in
IVF in Ireland that the Pro-Life Campaign makes this submission to the
Medical Council.
23
Leaving to one side the slightly difficult concept of who constitutes a “potential
mother” in this context, given what has gone before, the fact of the deletion to
the ‘mother’s uterus’ cannot be wholly without effect.
In this context, any express and favourable consideration of proposals for the
storage or freezing of human embryos by the Medical Council would
compound the underlying unsatisfactory nature of the regulation of IVF in
Ireland. Moreover, it would further compromise the right to life of countless
further embryos by exposing them to conditions minimising or significantly
reducing their chances of survival.
24
unborn enshrined in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The Medical
Council might consider adopting, as a statement of ethical principle, the
affirmation at its April 1996 Annual General Meeting by the Irish Medical
Organisation that the freezing of embryos is inconsistent with the medical
profession’s long-held tradition of respect for human life at all stages of
development.
The R versus R case before the Supreme Court will examine the current legal
status of frozen human embryos but, as stated already, the courts determine
what is legal, not what is ethical. Hence whatever the decision of the court in
this matter it will not negate the ethical requirement for respect of all life from
conception to natural death.
24.1 In this rapidly evolving and complicated area the Council reminds
doctors of Reproductive Medicine their obligation to preserve life and to
promote health. The creation of new forms of life for experimental
purposes or the deliberate intentional destruction of human life already
formed is professional misconduct.
25
Prior to fertilisation of an ovum, extensive discussion and counselling is
essential. Any fertilised ovum must be used for normal implantation and
must not be deliberately destroyed.
If couples have validly decided they do not wish to make use of their
own fertilised ova, the potential of voluntary donation to other recipients
may be considered.
The last paragraph in the 2004 Guidelines contradicts the essence of the 1998
guidelines in that it implies acceptance of freezing embryos where the 1998
guidelines did not. This paragraph should be dropped from the new guidelines.
The new guidelines should also clarify that using human embryos as a source
of stem cells either for research or therapeutic purposes is unethical as it
constitutes an attack on the life of the embryo.
After all, there can be no doubt that the human embryo is alive and unborn.
The embryo is not potential human life - it is human life with potential, albeit
fragile and dependent. The suggestion that an embryo should only enjoy
protection rights when implanted in a woman' s womb is arbitrary and ignores
the fact that each of us began our life as a human embryo.
Recommendations
That since IVF is at present under-regulated and its control is left to the vagaries of
the individual practitioners whose activities cannot be controlled, the revised Ethical
Guidelines, should include the content of 24.2, 24.3 and 24.7 should also assert
26
OTHER MATTERS
Abortion Assistance and Referral
Introduction
All editions of the Medical Council’s Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour
and to Fitness to Practise are opposed to induced abortion. In this submission,
the Pro-Life Campaign sets out why opposition to induced abortion should
logically apply also to abortion assistance and referral. There is a clear ethical
and logical, if not legal, dichotomy between having abortion in Ireland unethical
and at the same time allowing medical practitioners to actively assist having
unborn children aborted outside the State.
The Act provides for the giving of ‘Act information’, i.e. information likely to be
required by a woman to avail of services provided outside the State for the
termination of pregnancies. This information relates to such services and to
the persons who provide them,13 given by a person who engages in, or holds
himself out as engaging in, the activity of giving information, advice or
counselling to individual members of the public in relation to pregnancy.14
‘Termination of pregnancies’ is defined as the intentional procurement of
miscarriages of women who are pregnant’
Although the Act provides that it is unlawful for a person, upon a request to
give information, advice or counselling in relation to the particular
circumstances of a pregnant woman, to advocate or promote the termination
of her pregnancy, the giving of ‘Act information’ is perfectly lawful, subject to
certain conditions. In this regard, the Supreme Court noted that:
13
s. 2.
14
s. 1.
27
“Constitutional justice requires that in the giving of such information,
counselling and advice regard be had to the rights of persons likely to be
affected by such information, counselling and advice.”15
Furthermore, it provides that whereas it is unlawful for the persons giving the
‘Act information’ to make an appointment or any other arrangement for, or on
behalf, of a woman with a person who provides abortion services outside the
State, it was held by the Supreme Court that this provision
“ ... does not preclude [a doctor] once such appointment is made from
communicating in the normal way with such other doctor with regard to
the condition of his patient provided that such communication does not in
any way advocate or promote and is not accompanied by any advocacy
of the termination of pregnancy’16
Giving to the woman a written copy of, or the medical, surgical, clinical, social
or other records or notes, which he has in his possession relating to her, is not
prohibited by this provision.
Contradiction
15
In Re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside State for Termination
of Pregnancies) Bill 1995.
16
In Re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services Outside State for Termination
of Pregnancies) Bill 1995.
28
patient relationship, adherence to this principle is essential to the proper
practice of medicine, breaches being punishable by professional sanction and
at law. In general, therefore, to assist in, or refer for, the destruction of the life
of any patient is ethically and legally prohibited.
A doctor, when dealing with a pregnant mother, has two patients - the mother
and her unborn baby, and has a duty of care, both ethical, and enforceable at
law, simultaneously to each. As in any other clinical situation, a medical
practitioner cannot ignore his or her responsibilities to one patient in order
merely to satisfy the wishes of another. To deny the existence of such a duty is
to ignore the teaching of generations of obstetricians, the clear, almost
intuitive, knowledge of all parents and the reality of ever increasing medical
malpractice premia. If it is bad medicine to do, or fail to do, something which
results in damage to an unborn child en ventre sa mere how can it be good
medicine to do something which assists in procuring that child’s death? To
consider or counsel (however this counselling is done) abortion as merely one
option, from among many, which may be legitimately chosen, or to assist in, or
refer for, the destruction of the life of one patient is surely an abrogation of a
doctor’s duty to that patient.
Recommendations
2. The duty of a medical practitioner to give full information to patients about the
medical consequences of having an abortion.
29
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Induced Abortion
That the revised Ethical Guidelines, while maintaining the revised Section 24.6 and
24.1of the 2004 Guidelines and assert in other clauses:
1. The principle that in pregnancy the doctor has a duty of care towards two patients,
the mother and the unborn child;
2. The principle that necessary treatments which have a risk of unsought side effects
are ethical, even when the unsought effect is foreseeable, while procedures the
purpose of which are to cause the death of a patient are unethical.
5. Medical ethics do not follow each change in the law and that mere legality is not
equivalent to ethical practice.
6. A prohibition on induced abortion is both feasible and ethically necessary, and has
not resulted in the treatment appropriate for the management of any ill mother
being compromised in any way.
Euthanasia
1. The prohibition on euthanasia, in clear and robust terms of 1998 and 2004 Guide.
30
5. An affirmation of the principle, perhaps in the section of the Guide pertaining to
Ethical Conduct, that necessary treatments which have a risk of unsought side
effects are ethical, even when the unsought effect is foreseeable, while procedures
intended to cause the death of a patient are unethical.
That since IVF is at present under-regulated and its control is left to the vagaries of
individual practitioners whose activities cannot be monitored, the revised Ethical
Guidelines, should retain in essence the content of the2004 Guidelines 24.2, 24.3,
and 24.7, including the prohibition on deliberate destruction of the fertilised ovum and
also assert:
Other Matters
Abortion Assistance
2. The duty of a medical practitioner to give full information to patients about the
medical consequences of abortion.
31
CONCLUSION
32
Submission
To
Medical Council’s
Ethics Committee
Pro-Life Campaign
34 Gardiner Street Upper
Dublin 1
T: 01-8748090,
F: 01-8748094,
E: prolife@indigo.ie
6th September 2007
33
34