Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ball was there; I had to hit it.

I will follow on from Deputy Donnelly's questions, and he has probably saved me some time because this is the issue I have been raising for some time and, in fairness to Mr. McCallion, I asked this question a number of months ago and he was very honest in his answer. Mr. McCallion told me that, essentially, there was no way to reprioritise or to distinguish totally in this respect. The delay is now 27 weeks. It was 24 weeks, and we were told by the Minister it had gone down to 22 weeks, but now it back up to 27 weeks. Dr. McKenna might explain why that is the case?

With short recalls versus routine smears versus those who are going for reassurance tests, the issue of the prioritisation of women is a concern. Let us be responsible about this. I agree with Dr. McKenna that when it is broken down, there is a low risk but there is a risk and it is accentuated for a small number of women because of the 27-week delay given they are further along the path and the transition from non-invasive to invasive. It is at the critical juncture. If one is caught in that 27-week delay because one is at that point of going from one stage to the other, that is a problem. There is no point in saying otherwise; it is an issue. It is a consequence of decision-making and all of that. I am not apportioning blame; that is not what I am getting at, but there is a concern in terms of how rapidly the delay is tackled because it creates risk. I have been told of cases of women who are probably at the point where they are moving from one stage to the other and this delay has now pushed on their diagnosis after having had a smear test. There is a concern about the impact of this disease on their health and the risk. The consequence for their health is worse because of this. I accept it is low risk. What I have outlined with respect to a small number of cases is possible, is it not?