The last couple of weeks have brought a little bit of clarity to public debate on the medical conditions at the heart of calls to permit greater access to abortion in Ireland. The medical conditions in question result in the unborn baby having a seriously curtailed life expectancy. They primarily include such conditions as anencephaly, Trisomy 13 and Trisomy 18. Pro-choice campaigners categorise these conditions as “fatal foetal abnormalities”. A very significant number of parents who have given birth to a child with one of these conditions prefer the term “life-limiting conditions”.
Last November, in a decision by the High Court of Northern Ireland, Mr. Justice Horner pronounced on the topic. He declared that a foetus with this condition is “incapable” of living outside the mother’s womb, that he or she is “doomed” to die before birth and is “incompatible with life”. Justice Horner further remarked that a child with one of these conditions has “no life to protect” and is not a “human life”. He strongly suggested that the unborn in such a scenario is morally and legally speaking “nothing”. There was, the Justice argued, “no life to protect”.
Earlier this month, Prof. Fergal Malone spoke at length on the topic. He is the new Master of the Rotunda hospital in Dublin. Although Prof. Malone’s overall moral position on the matter was implicitly dismissive of the right to life of these children, he did at least provide some degree of clarity as to the relevant medical facts. Speaking to various media outlets, he rejected the idea that the unborn entity in question is “nothing” and is not a “human life”. Prof. Malone instead described the entity as a “child” and a “baby”. In other words he accepted that the debate concerns the rights and dignity of a small, living human being. He also rejected the idea that babies with these conditions are doomed to die before birth and are incompatible with life. He instead acknowledged that children with these conditions can not only survive birth but can live for days, weeks, months and even in some cases for years after it.
This week Dr. Rhona O’Mahony, Master of Holles Street hospital, also acknowledged that the beings at the center of this debate are human “babies”. She used the term “life limiting condition” to describe the severe disabilities and illnesses these children suffer from. This term is much more humane than “fatal foetal abnormality”, and it also conveys the fact that the relevant conditions by no means necessarily result in the child’s death either before or at birth.
Unfortunately, neither Prof. Malone nor Dr. O’Mahony professed an egalitarian rights ethic in their moral judgments of abortion in these cases. Both argued for the legaliSed killing of babies with these conditions and both therefore rejected the equal right to life of all human beings. They did not offer any kind of reason for why children with these conditions should not receive legal protection. Perhaps they believe that other or even most categories of unborn child don’t deserve legal protection from abortion. Or perhaps they believe that only this especially vulnerable class of child doesn’t deserve such legal protection. It is in the public interest that they make their views known. Public debate would also be enhanced if they offered their reasons for their views, i.e. why some children deserve legal protection while others don’t.