Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their attendance and their frank and open statements which prove that nobody except those directly involved - the patient and his or her close relatives - have an understanding of the trauma caused in the circumstances that have been described. I congratulate the deledgates on their presentations.

Speaking to a previous delegation to the committee, I noted that Deputies are regularly called to mediate and intervene. One of the questions frequently put to us is whether we are competent to make a decision in a particular case. I am regularly asked this question and I always reply in the affirmative, although I am not medically competent to do so. On some occasions, one does not require a great deal of expertise to be able to determine that something is going wrong. In a number of the cases described, it would have been clear to any layperson that something had gone wrong. For instance, in this day and age, no one should acquire an infection from a hypodermic needle, particularly one that would cause permanent damage to a patient or child. Similarly, women should not be placed at significant risk in childbirth, as has occurred in certain cases about which we have been informed.

We need to get away from that risk and remember that the patients, two patients in some of those cases, have rights and entitlements. On the question of whether voluntary disclosure versus a statutory obligation is the way to go, there is no doubt in my mind. It has to be mandatory. Otherwise, the choice will be on the one hand and on the other.

I remember once being asked about a particularly traumatic case involving a lot of people and my immediate line at that time was that there should be an admission and things should proceed from there. It was going to happen anyway. There was going to have to be an admission and that was what happened. However, it did not happen until after protracted legal disputes. It should not have to happen that way because the trauma and suffering affecting the patient and the family are sufficient without having to have to go through the proof part of it later in court. That may well have to be the case, but at least there would be some recognition of their trauma at an earlier stage.

There is a grave danger. In the past it is possible that things went unchallenged and unnoted but we have now reached a situation in terms of what the public expects and what professionals expect also in terms of professional protection whereby disclosure is necessary in everybody's interests, including of those who have temporary or permanent damage. I accept the point about the principle versus the monetary compensation. I have mentioned before that there should be some immediate response by way of acceptance that something went wrong and an attempt should be made to cross the bridge to the patient or other relatives by simply saying something went wrong and, without debate and without prejudice, some compensation should be made. There would be then at least a recognition that the authorities admitted that something went wrong or at least acknowledged that something went wrong and, as a result, it might in some way assuage the hurt and trauma. The trauma will stay forever and a day but the hurt at that particular moment can in some way be assuaged by the manner in which the patient and the patient's family is treated.