Dáil debates

Wednesday, 8 March 2006

Lourdes Hospital Inquiry: Statements.

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

In addressing the Harding Clark report tribute must be paid first and foremost to the courageous women who with Patient Focus have struggled for justice over many years. To them alone must go the credit for revealing the full horror of what went on in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. To these women also we owe a debt of gratitude for highlighting many fundamental flaws in our hospital services which are exposed in this report and from which lessons can and must be learned and implemented.

Ar an lá seo, Lá Idirnáisiúnta na mBan, gabhaimid buíochas leis na mná seo a rinne seirbhís, ní dóibh fhéin amháin ach do mná na tíre agus don bpobal ar fad.

It is vital that the Government moves swiftly now to implement the recommendations of the report and establishes the redress scheme for all the women victims of malpractice in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children has stated that the redress scheme does not require legislation and that necessary legislation with regard to the pursuit of insurers can proceed in parallel and this is to be welcomed. We await clarity on the timescale as experience with other redress schemes has not been good. In the case of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital many of the women have been waiting decades for justice. No further delay should be countenanced and everything should be up and running before the summer.

Last evening the members of the Oireachtas support group met the representatives of Patient Focus. We reiterated our call, issued before the publication of the Harding Clark report, for the immediate establishment of a redress board. It has been emphasised to us by Patient Focus and we have made clear in a letter to the Tánaiste this morning the need for all of the women concerned to be included under the terms of the redress scheme.

The victims of Mr. Neary and others who practised in the maternity unit at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital require and deserve a redress scheme that fully accommodates their need to have their experiences outlined and heard. All victims of Mr. Neary and others should be accommodated. The scheme should not be confined to the 129 cases of Caesarean hysterectomies performed by Mr. Neary but should include all those and without exception, who were subjected to this brutal procedure, some 59 further cases. It should also encompass all other bad outcomes, including those who had their ovaries removed and the cases of the babies who died. It is not anticipated that the number of cases involved would exceed 250. These are the priorities so far as the women victims themselves are concerned.

The report raises many other fundamental issues about the operation of our hospital services and its recommendations are wide ranging, with implications far beyond the confines of one hospital in Drogheda. The biggest question it raises is how such gross malpractice could have been allowed to continue for 24 years with no one shouting "stop". It should not be forgotten that but for the decision of two midwives to raise concerns in 1998 the full truth might never have been told. Why was this the case? The report highlights a system characterised by authoritarianism, elitism, lack of accountability, lack of consultation, inadequate training and bad management. Judge Harding Clark states that the story is "set in a time of unquestioning submission to authority, whether religious or civil".

It is clear that Mr. Neary operated without being accountable to anyone. A strict hierarchy existed in which all staff were expected to know their place. I was reminded of a statement of a former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, when he said that hospital consultants were, "kings in their own domain". This was certainly the case of the consultants who worked in the maternity unit at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital.

This is not ancient history. The first so-called inquiry into this scandal was carried out by professional colleagues of Mr. Neary. They examined the cases of nine women, cases carefully selected by Mr. Neary himself. This sham exonerated Mr. Neary. Judge Harding Clark is being very generous when she says that those involved in this sham inquiry reached their conclusions on the basis of "compassion and collegiality". If it was compassion, it was not compassion for the women victims of their colleague. If it was collegiality, it was a misplaced loyalty within a profession that too often has protected itself and placed the interests of its members as a body and as individuals above the interests of patients.

The Medical Council also has much to answer for. Why did it take the Medical Council from June 2000 to July 2003 to complete its investigation? While this investigation finally led to the striking off the register of Mr. Neary, its long duration was a cause of much distress to the women concerned. With much wider scope and more detailed terms of reference, Judge Harding Clark took far less time to complete her report.

The scandal is that all of this took place in a hospital funded by the Government to treat public patients, yet the State provided no proper system of oversight and accountability for those into whose care it had placed our citizens. I reiterate my concern about the hospital consultants' common contract. The existing contract reflects the era of lack of accountability and elitism in which the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital scandal was allowed to continue. The report states that to this day consultants are spending too much time with private patients yet the renegotiation of the contract is long overdue and there seems to be little progress in this regard.

The Tánaiste stated last week that the report confirms the appropriateness of the actions being taken by the Government across a range of health issues. This remains to be seen, given the Government's record so far. This report should be a clarion call that contradicts another statement by the Tánaiste shortly after her appointment to the Department of Health and Children in December 2004, as follows: "I believe in a minimalist role for the State in all our lives, including health care". In the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital scandal the problem was that the State had not only a minimalist role, it had abandoned its responsibilities. If the women are to get justice, their call in all its dimensions must be heeded and acted upon and the State must face up to its responsibilities not from a minimalist disposition, but to be the guardians of the interests of all patients in its jurisdiction.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.