Amid the heat generated by constitutional review debates, sobriety should prevail at all times to enact a constitution that will be widely embraced and withstand the test of time.

The current efforts and funds so far spent on the process would have gone to waste if we begin reviewing the Constitution again soon after its enactment, to address flaws.

It, therefore, calls for more light than heat, especially in addressing issues that have generated so much controversy.

One such issue is when life begins. The Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Review recently arrived at consensus that it should be stated in the new constitution that life begins at conception.

Several lobby groups have waged campaigns to push for a constitution that declares that life begins at birth.

Yet others think the matter of when life begins is too complicated to be entrenched in a constitution.

The ensuing debate has mostly been driven by emotions generated by personal and religious beliefs. The debate has narrowed to the emotive issue of abortion although the proposed legislation has much broader ramifications than abortion.

Medical doctors — mostly professionals without any vested interests — have raised the red flag about the possible consequences of the proposed clause, especially on women and even the unborn babies.

Remove growths

They have, for instance, argued that not all conceptions lead to the formation of human beings. They say some tumours arise as a result of conception and it would not be possible to remove such growths without attracting the wrath of the law. Women with such complications would be condemned to death or preventable lifelong sufferings.

The same fate is likely to befall women with ectopic pregnancies — a situation where a foetus implants in the wrong place.

There is overwhelming fear that women who suffer miscarriages or pregnancy related complications are likely to be arraigned in court for suspected murder, manslaughter or even reckless cause of death.

In essence, many innocent women are likely to be punished not only for a consequence they have no control over but which has also caused them untold grief. It is estimated that around 25 per cent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriages.

Medical doctors’ cardinal aim is to save lives and many often find themselves in situations where they have to make quick decisions, in split seconds, in matters of life and death.

If the proposed law is endorsed or not revised, many of them will think twice before saving the lives of women who are often rushed to them after botched backstreet abortions or pregnancy complications. In Kenya, cases of unsafe abortions are on the rise. Some reports indicate that 35 per cent of maternal deaths are attributable to abortions conducted by quacks.

In essence, for the first time since independence and in one of the rare few cases worldwide, medical professionals totter on the brink of being "gagged" if the proposed clause is endorsed.

And many women, who are the majority in the society, are likely to suffer consequences of a law that they virtually played no role in formulating. It should be noted that PSC, which proposed the rule, and the political class – which is likely to play a key role in enactment of the new constitution – are male dominated.

Proposed clause

One fallacy that has been repeated is that opposition to the proposed clause is endorsing abortion. It is, mainly, this fallacy that has led to many religious groups supporting the clause overwhelmingly although many of their followers and relatives are also likely to be the law’s victims if endorsed.

Given the controversy the proposal has generated and without appearing to lean on either side, the Committee of Experts and PSC should remove the definition of life from the Constitution.

They should expunge any legislation that hampers medical officers in their sworn obligation of saving lives and upholding the sanctity of life.