Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, I was dealing with another Bill that was on Committee Stage and therefore missed part of this discussion, but I have listened keenly to the Minister's concluding remarks. I acknowledge and welcome the fact he has accepted the need to amendment the Bill at this late stage and to ensure women are informed of their right to seek a review. Others across the House have said that this does not normally happen in respect of legislation and debates, but this is a very different debate and we all understand this. We have a significant responsibility and burden on behalf of everyone who was wronged and those who have gone before us to make sure this is right. That is the key issue. We need to get it right and we have an opportunity here to do right.

There has been a huge amount of campaigning and personal sacrifice which has led to these moments, so I strongly urge the Minister to listen to the proposals that have been put forward. The Dáil is the place to deal with this. There are people here who have the expertise and have been involved in campaigning on this issue for many years. That is no reflection on the Seanad. The Seanad will deal its issues. We need to ensure the amendment on informing of the right to a review, which the Minister intends to bring forward, is appropriate in the first instance. There is another issue. When we pare all of this back, at the end of the day, even with that amendment, which is welcome and we have argued for it, it still places the responsibility on the individual, and that is a serious issue. When this was announced several weeks ago, after the death of Vicky Phelan, everybody believed it was important we get this right and there would be transparency and a duty of candour, but I never thought it would be a case of, "If you ask, we will tell you." If there is an identifiable misreading of a test, through a programmatic audit or otherwise, that information should be provided to the individual, and that is the core we need to get to. We need to make sure information that could be provided to the individual is not being withheld. Unfortunately, even with the advancement of this amendment, that would be the case. Individuals would only be informed that there has been a misreading of their test if they seek the review.

Unfortunately, cancer has touched so many of our lives. We do not know how the process by which that information will be provided. Will it be as people are sitting down to be told of their diagnosis and in the middle of their world collapsing around them that they are told? That puts a responsibility on individuals. There should be an onus to tell, to inform, to be transparent and to disclose provided for in the legislation. The onus should not be on the patient to request this. While making sure the review is provided for, which we acknowledge is an advancement and we welcome it, it does not take away from the fact there must be an onus to inform. I strongly urge the Minister, in the spirit in which he has accepted the arguments put forward by my colleagues on the Opposition benches on the right to review and to be informed of that right, to look at this, as the debate has evolved, in terms of being patient and individual-centred and stepping into their shoes.

In terms of programmatic audits, we can design the types of audits that will allow anonymised audits, but it is to be able to trace where a mistake has been identified and to inform the individual. I take the point that some people may not want to be informed, and that is why the argument for an opt-in system is very simple, to tick the box when asked whether a person wants to be informed if it were the case. The information that is accessible at a point should be divulged to the individual. I always understood, along with those who have campaigned and argued for this, the concept would be that of open disclosure. It would not be open disclosure if an individual has to request a review and perhaps is told at a traumatic and difficult time. We still do not know how an individual would be informed, whether it would be by letter or as part of the consultation. The key issue is that responsibility needs to be on the system and not on the individual patient. I strongly urge the Minister to deal with that second matter.

See this speech in context