The question that now arises is: is the report on symphysiotomy commissioned by the Minister for Health from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (IOG) intended to be a whitewash?
Recent revelations about symphysiotomy suggest that the document will, at a minimum, be canonical in nature.
Just as the Catholic Church concealed the sexual abuse of children by the clergy, so the medical authorities continue to cover up the surgical abuse that was symphysiotomy. The hierarchy that has been asked to produce this report by the Minister now stands exposed, however.
That symphysiotomy was performed here for religious reasons has been confirmed by none other than Professor Emeritus Dr Eamon O Dwyer, formerly of University College Hospital Galway.
His statement is totally at variance with the doctrine promulgated by the IOG to date. Their line is that symphysiotomy was the standard treatment in Ireland for difficult births until 1960 and that it was done out of medical necessity.
Dr O Dwyer also reaffirmed another IOG tenet of faith, namely, that symphysiotomy led to excellent results. This is despite testimony from a former patient that, like hundreds of others, she had been left crippled and incontinent by the surgery.
Another article of faith promulgated by the IOG in its 2001 letter to the Chief Medical Officer of Health is that the operation ceased here in 1960. While it has long been known that the surgery continued at the Lourdes until 1983, the admission from the National Maternity Hospital that it persisted there until 1972 casts new light on the doctrinal position adopted by the IOG.
The State, not the medical hierarchy, now needs to explain why this aberrant surgery was allowed to continue in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital Drogheda until 1983 and how the premier maternity hospital in Ireland could have practised it until 1972, at least.
Moreover, senior civil servants at the Department of Health should be asked why the theological letter penned by the Institute in 2001 was used to frame the report requested by the Minister in the wake of the Prime Time programme. Finally, the Minister herself should be required to explain why she has seen fit to commission a report that can only lead to further erroneous theology on symphysiotomy.
As for the availability pf supports and services, liaison officers have disappeared, while 'fast-tracked hospital appointments' are a myth, just like individual pathways of care. While appropriate medical treatment is often stymied by doctors in denial about this discredited operation, the refund of medical expenses continues to be a battleground. Far from being in receipt of physiotherapy, reflexology, home help, acupuncture and osteopathy, symphysiotomy survivors can expect to pay for their own back surgery, with stair lifts reserved for the dying.
Marie O'Connor
Posted on 22 Mar 2010 7:45 pm
The question that now arises is: is the report on symphysiotomy commissioned by the Minister for Health from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (IOG) intended to be a whitewash?
Recent revelations about symphysiotomy suggest that the document will, at a minimum, be canonical in nature.
Just as the Catholic Church concealed the sexual abuse of children by the clergy, so the medical authorities continue to cover up the surgical abuse that was symphysiotomy. The hierarchy that has been asked to produce this report by the Minister now stands exposed, however.
That symphysiotomy was performed here for religious reasons has been confirmed by none other than Professor Emeritus Dr Eamon O Dwyer, formerly of University College Hospital Galway.
His statement is totally at variance with the doctrine promulgated by the IOG to date. Their line is that symphysiotomy was the standard treatment in Ireland for difficult births until 1960 and that it was done out of medical necessity.
Dr O Dwyer also reaffirmed another IOG tenet of faith, namely, that symphysiotomy led to excellent results. This is despite testimony from a former patient that, like hundreds of others, she had been left crippled and incontinent by the surgery.
Another article of faith promulgated by the IOG in its 2001 letter to the Chief Medical Officer of Health is that the operation ceased here in 1960. While it has long been known that the surgery continued at the Lourdes until 1983, the admission from the National Maternity Hospital that it persisted there until 1972 casts new light on the doctrinal position adopted by the IOG.
The State, not the medical hierarchy, now needs to explain why this aberrant surgery was allowed to continue in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital Drogheda until 1983 and how the premier maternity hospital in Ireland could have practised it until 1972, at least.
Moreover, senior civil servants at the Department of Health should be asked why the theological letter penned by the Institute in 2001 was used to frame the report requested by the Minister in the wake of the Prime Time programme. Finally, the Minister herself should be required to explain why she has seen fit to commission a report that can only lead to further erroneous theology on symphysiotomy.
As for the availability pf supports and services, liaison officers have disappeared, while 'fast-tracked hospital appointments' are a myth, just like individual pathways of care. While appropriate medical treatment is often stymied by doctors in denial about this discredited operation, the refund of medical expenses continues to be a battleground. Far from being in receipt of physiotherapy, reflexology, home help, acupuncture and osteopathy, symphysiotomy survivors can expect to pay for their own back surgery, with stair lifts reserved for the dying.
Shame on all concerned.