The Medical Council's current ethical guidelines on reproductive medicine state: "The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct. Should a child in utero lose its life as a side-effect of standard medical treatment of the mother, then this is not unethical. Refusal by a doctor to treat a woman with a serious illness because she is pregnant would be grounds for complaint and could be considered to be professional misconduct."

The motions proposed at the council and which led to the current controversy are: "That the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother " and ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when the foetus is no longer viable".

What are the implications of the proposed changes and why were they undertaken? The first motion, dealing with the risk to the life of the mother, is worded in a similar way to the judgment in the X case. The second motion could be interpreted as making abortion available for all non-viable foetuses under 24 weeks' gestation [the medically-defined cut-off for viability outside the uterus].

Why the council chose to change the wording of the ethical guide is not clear, although each council traditionally revises the guide once during its term of office. This usually takes place in the last year of the council's tenure, which makes this revision two years earlier than expected.

The current debate on the issue of abortion has its genesis in the publication of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee Report on Abortion. Following its publication last year, it is believed there was debate over whether the report should be considered by the full council or by its ethics committee.

According to a document, which has been seen by the Irish Times, Dr Abdul Bulbulia [a Ministerial appointee] wrote to the president of the Medical Council suggesting it study the All-Party Oireachtas Committee Report. He requested that the issues be tabled "for discussion" at a council meeting early in 2001.

At the December 15th, 2000 meeting, the council looked at the letter from Dr Bulbulia and recommended that a copy of the report be obtained for each member and after an appropriate period the council should discuss it.

The issue appeared on the agenda of the council at its meeting on April 27th, 2001. A proposal that a half-day meeting of the council be devoted to discussing the issue was agreed and this was arranged for Wednesday, May 30th, 2001.

The controversial motions were proposed and passed by a majority vote, at a meeting which took several hours. A third motion "that the Medical Council consult the profession and the professional bodies as had been the practice heretofore" was defeated.

Seven council members opposed to the first two motions then walked out of the meeting. The council sought advice on its position and was subsequently advised by Mr Peter Charleton SC that the procedures used at the May 30th meeting were incorrect. He said "the two proposals which obtained a majority of votes are invalid because they seek to alter the stated position of the council as per the fifth edition of the [Ethical] Guide". Mr Charleton advised that such changes should be first considered by the ethics committee or else that the full council should withdraw from this committee its delegated authority to deal with the substantive issue.

Following the circulation of this advice, those opposed to a change in the status quo sought to have the motion overturned. When this failed at an extraordinary meeting of the council on July 12th, the seven members went to the High Court last Monday to seek leave for a judicial review of the council's decision.

Their request was dismissed by Mr Justice Butler, who noted that rather than use the council's democratic process, the applicants had tried to use a back door method.

So where does the council go from here? Its next meeting is scheduled for September and it is expected revised ethical guidelines on abortion will be issued shortly after this. Interestingly, one legal source suggested the motions are now part of council policy and as such are effective immediately.

The two-month-long saga is now closed as far as the Medical Council is concerned. But it is fair to say that decisions it has made on the ethical aspects of abortion will significantly influence the national debate - whether or not the Government goes ahead with a referendum on the issue.