Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to debate the ongoing difficulties, suffering and trauma experienced by more than 100 women arising from their maltreatment at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. Recently, I was invited to a meeting in Drogheda by a group called Patient Focus in Drogheda which wanted assistance in having its members experience at the hands of a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital dealt with. The President of the Medical Council acknowledged in a report that women, babies and families were damaged in the hospital. This was very strong talk from the President of the Medical Council. I will quote an extract from a report on the fitness to practice of the consultant. It reads as follows:

The Report makes difficult and distressing reading. It tells the story of a tragedy which has very seriously injured you and other women. [This relates to ten chosen women from the fitness to practice committee investigating Mr. Neary]. The fact that you and other women could come to such harm at the hands of a member of my profession is something which I and other members of the Medical Council find unacceptable. The apology which I extend to you for that hurt cannot turn back the clock but may help a little in dealing with its consequences.

This is an apology which goes some way towards alleviating the suffering of these women. These people, who want to meet the Minister for Health and Children, have been ignored. They have sought a meeting for six years and it would help to bring some form of closure to their position. Approximately 130 women are living with the consequences of this butchery, which is the only way I can describe it. To add insult to injury, in most cases these women may have gone into hospital to have a small cyst removed, or to have a minor operation, and they were told afterwards that they were exceptionally lucky to be alive, it was a miracle they were still here and this consultant had just saved their lives. These women believed this. Later on, they met others who were also told they were lucky. Wombs were removed from women or girls as young as 19 years of age. Ovaries were removed from these women, which is a tragedy. They feel that every possible obstacle is being put in their way of having their complaints addressed.

Of the 130 claims lodged, upwards of 45 have been settled, but 39 files have gone missing. We will never know whether they were burned, but we know they are missing and there is no record of them. One must presume that something is being hidden. There are a number of incomplete files, files badly written up and sections missing from files. This is almost sufficient for a further inquiry.

What happened in Drogheda should send a message to the rest of the country. It was a student nurse who raised the alarm that something was wrong. Many professionals should have picked up on what was happening. We must ask whether sufficient safeguards are in place in this regard. Perhaps there should be comparators with different hospitals or at different monthly meetings in terms of whether something has gone beyond the bounds of what is normal. One would expect to experience just one such case in a lifetime, or one every ten years, yet a multiple of cases were involved in Drogheda.

The demands of the Patient Focus group are not very high. The group wants a firm commitment from the Government that a redress board will be established. There is a report by Judge Maureen Harding Clark and it is believed that these people can work together. There is a precedent for setting up such a board. A redress board was set up following the Stardust disaster. It would help to bring closure to what happened in Drogheda. Some of these people are unfit to go into an open court to plead their case.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Tánaiste to the issues raised by Deputy Connolly and to advise the House of the background and current position in regard to these matters.

In 1998, employees of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, alleged to the North Eastern Health Board's legal adviser that Dr. Michael Neary had been performing an abnormally high rate of caesarean hysterectomies at the hospital. The board invited the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to nominate an expert group to investigate the complaints against Dr. Neary. The group reported in 1999 as follows: first, Dr. Neary's practice had a high incidence of both caesarean section births and peripartum caesarean hysterectomy, namely, removal of the uterus following delivery of a baby, and, second, in regard to the patients who had a peripartum caesarean hysterectomy, Dr. Neary's clinical practice was unacceptable in 46.2% of cases, doubtful in 12.8% of cases and acceptable in 41% of cases.

The North Eastern Health Board referred the report to the Medical Council. The council also received 37 other complaints concerning Dr. Neary's professional conduct. The council's fitness to practice committee decided that 21 of these complaints warranted holding an inquiry under the Medical Practitioners Act 1978. On the application of the Medical Council in February, 1999, the High Court granted an order suspending Dr. Neary from the Medical Register. That order remained in place for the duration of the inquiry.

The Medical Council reported in July 2003 and decided that Dr. Neary's name should be erased from the Medical Register after finding him guilty of professional misconduct in regard to the unnecessary removal of wombs from 12 patients between 1986 and 1996. The Government decided that a further inquiry was necessary into the matters raised by the Medical Council. Judge Maureen Harding Clark, a judge of the International Criminal Court, was appointed to chair the inquiry. The principal purpose of the inquiry, which is non-statutory, is to establish why so many peripartum hysterectomies were performed at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital over such a long period, and to ensure that all necessary measures are put in place to prevent any recurrence of this within the hospital system. Specifically, the inquiry is examining the rate of peripartum hysterectomy at Drogheda, and how this rate compares with the rate in other maternity units of similar status. It is seeking to establish whether the practice was commented on or acted upon by consultant or other medical and nursing staff, or by management of the hospital. It is seeking to ascertain the system of recording at the hospital, whether such records still exist and, if not, what has become of them. It is seeking to establish whether this review and consultation took place within the unit and whether periodical clinical reports were prepared. It is also examining the practices and protocols currently in place at the hospital with a view to advising on whether additional protocols and systems of control should now be put in place.

It is understood that the inquiry is making good progress and has received a significant level of co-operation to date in its work. Subject to legal advice, it is the intention of the Tánaiste to publish the report of the inquiry when it comes to hand.

Patient Focus is an advocacy group that represents some 130 women who were patients at the obstetrics-gynaecology unit at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. It is understood the group has been co-operating with the inquiry.

The Tánaiste has received proposals from Patient Focus requesting the establishment of a redress board and intends to meet the group shortly to discuss its request. Following that meeting, the Tánaiste will discuss the matter in consultation with her Government colleagues.