Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Chronic pain, incontinence, hip degeneration, organ prolapse and psychological trauma are some of the horrendous lifelong effects of symphysiotomy. They are also the effects which have been completely rubbished by the assessor of the Government's symphysiotomy redress scheme, Ms Justice Harding Clark. The exclusion of survivors’ oral evidence from the terms of reference of the scheme and a narrow focus on medical records going back 50 years as proof of disability make it near impossible for many to prove they are in fact victims. Hospitals are not required to keep medical records going back more than seven years. The burden of proof, therefore, lies unfairly and disproportionately with the victim. In cases where medical records are available, in many cases symphysiotomy was not recorded, even when it took place. MRI scans were also used in assessing victimhood but the report itself admitted that the use of modern radiology to measure disability occurring half a century ago is unsupported by any orthopaedic literature, yet it was used as a diagnostic tool.

While the UN Human Rights Committee classified symphysiotomy as torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and involuntary medical experimentation, Harding Clark decided it was not that bad. According to her report, it was medically appropriate and patient consent was unnecessary. Not only does the State not believe many of the women who came forward as victims, but in classic victim-blaming mode, Harding Clark actually accused many of them of making false statements for financial gain. The voices of the victims were trumped by accounts of doctors who engaged in the practice of symphysiotomy, many of whom were guided by their own religious convictions. It may seem unbelievable now that C-section was once seen as a form of birth control. However, we only have to look at the State’s ongoing violation of the human rights of women through its draconian stance on abortion to see religious nuts still call the shots as regards women's bodily integrity.

One would think after the Magdalen laundries, the death of children in mother and baby homes and the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, the State might start to take responsibility for its many crimes against women. Yet this scheme strips victims of their constitutional rights, denies applicants their right to appeal and forces them to see their abusers as harmless. For anyone who actually read the survivors’ testimonies, the idea of describing the perpetrators as harmless is sickening. The report is an exercise in the protection of the medical hierarchy. It is a load of rubbish.

See this speech in context