Sir, – Prof Veronica O'Keane says that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, which allows a suicidal woman to seek an abortion, is "arduous . . . cumbersome and effectively unworkable" (News, June 13th). These are extraordinary comments given that Prof O'Keane campaigned strongly for the introduction of the Act in the first place.
In May 2013 she gave a lengthy presentation to the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children where she dismissed concerns raised by her colleagues in the field of psychiatry and called on the Oireachtas to enact what she described as this “very limited legislation” which she said was a“small concession” on the issue of abortion.
Prof O'Keane has written that only psychiatrists with pro-choice views should be allowed to treat women under the Act, saying that "the conscientious objectors need to move aside now and allow the majority of doctors to conscientiously implement the legislation" ("Anti-choice psychiatrists undermine abortion law", Opinion & Analysis, February 14th, 2014).
How can she now turn around and criticise legislation that she actively campaigned for and vocally supported?
Prof O’Keane also points out that psychiatrists are “reluctant to engage” with the process under the Act. This can hardly come as a surprise, since there was virtual unanimity among her professional colleagues that abortion was not a treatment for suicidal ideation. At the time, 113 consultant psychiatrists, representing 90 per ce nt of respondents within the profession, wrote jointly to the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children to say that “a proposal that abortion should not form part of the treatment for suicidal ideation has no basis in the medical evidence available” and that they were being “called on to participate in a process that is not evidence based”.
This evidence was ignored by the Oireachtas, which decided that they knew better than doctors. Against that background, is it any wonder that psychiatrists are reluctant to engage with the process? In what other field of medicine would we expect doctors to ignore their professional training and the available medical evidence, and instead follow a process laid down by lawyers, legislators and left-wing campaigners?
A classic campaign tactic of the pro-choice movement is that changes to the law are portrayed as minor and uncontroversial and for the benefit of women, but over time the goalposts are shifted and so-called “hard cases” are produced which allows these same laws are portrayed as being harmful, leading to calls for even more liberal laws. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.