A young woman has been refused an abortion under what it believed to be one of the first tests of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which allows for abortion in limited circumstances and came into effect at the beginning of the year.

The women, who is not an Irish national, subsequently had her baby delivered at around 25 weeks gestation by Caesarean section.

The woman believed that as a result of her pregnancy there was a serious threat to her safety and well-being and that her life may have been in danger, although not on medical grounds. The case was revealed in the Irish Independent.

The woman recently sought an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 as she claimed to be suicidal.

Her request was examined, as per the new law, by a panel of three medical experts, The panel was made up a consultant obstetrician and two psychiatrists.

The two psychiatrists on the panel determined the woman's life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts, but the obstetrician on the panel said the woman could have the baby delivered delivered as she was far enough into the pregnancy.

A week after the woman first presented  to hospital seeking a termination she was told she was to be refused an abortion. She then went on a hunger and thirst strike.

The HSE then went to the High Court to get a care order to prevent the woman from dying on hunger and thirst strike.

The woman then consented to have the baby delivered, having initially refused a delivery, and the infant was born by caesarean section, around three weeks after the women first presented.

The baby is now believed to be healthy and progressing well, and is expected to be taken into care by the HSE.

The Pro Life Campaign said the case highlighted the 'horror and deep-seated flaws' in the new abortion legislation.

It said to induce a pregnancy at such an early stage inevitably put the baby at risk.

The Campaign said the fact that the expert panel in this case could just as easily have sanctioned an abortion also brought home everything that is wrong about the new law.

However, the National Women's Council claimed the refusal of an abortion in this case was 'barbaric'.

The Human Rights in Ireland organisation said it was important to note the guidelines for doctors contemplated a situation like this.

It said premature Caesarean was simply a medical treatment, even if it had its origins in a request for an abortion and none of what happened to this woman after she was refused a termination was governed by the new legislation.

The organisation said the case raised the issue of what should happen where a woman refused the medical procedure (premature delivery) presented to her as an alternative to a requested abortion.

It said the guidelines for doctors under the new law did not provide transparency about this sort of case.

New guidelines in wake of Savita case