Despite the Government’s recent overwhelming majority on legislation allowing abortion in limited circumstances in this country, a potential obstacle remains in its path and threatens a looming clash with one voluntary hospital out of the seven selected among 25 hospitals nationwide as appropriate to perform abortions.
The hospital in question, the Mater, has strong links with the Catholic Church. In the war of words now erupting, a first volley has been fired by a priest, Fr Kevin Doran, who sits on the board of the Mater and claims it "cannot comply" with the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. Presumably, this view was uttered in a personal capacity. Whatever the explanation, it was clearly a blatant attempt to pre-empt the outcome of an impending board meeting there.
In a rapidly moving encounter, a broadside has been returned by a spokesperson for Health Minister James Reilly, reminding both Fr Doran and the Mater that hospitals which refuse on grounds of religious ethos to carry out abortions to save women’s lives could face the withdrawal of state funding.
At issue here is a fundamental question of whether the law of the land or the religious ethos of a hospital is the more important factor when it comes to a matter of saving a woman’s life. One way or another, the scene has now been set for a crucial meeting at which the directors of the Mater, all of whom have connections with Catholicism, will have to make up their minds.
Ireland has seven voluntary hospitals. The other six have indicated they will comply with the law of the land. That includes St Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, which is part-owned and part-managed by the Religious Sisters of Charity. Despite its religious ethos, the group has made clear it would "as always, be following the law of the land".
For the Mater, the repercussions of withdrawing State funding would be costly indeed, involving a potential loss of €210m. That sum should concentrate the minds of those sitting around the board table, especially with the hospital currently going through a major development project.
Any lingering doubts regarding the withdrawal of funding can be discounted since it has also been made clear that Dr Reilly’s warning about hospitals losing state funding if they did not comply with the legislation still stands.
While the intervention by Fr Doran would appear to have thrown the cat among the pigeons, the impact of his intrusion has been nullified by the willingness of the other voluntary hospitals to toe the Government line. They accept the law is the law.
Surely no hospital worthy of the name could, on the basis of religious ethos, ever justify turning its back on a pregnant woman with medical complications that could put her life at risk.
While the Government is facing a possible dilemma which could test its resolve, ironically any fears that several hospitals would rebel have effectively been dispelled. In the health business, money talks.